WIL WHEATON dot NET: 1.5

Well Wil, lot less died in this war than most wars.
Look up the history of Dresden Germany.

Wil,

You have suddenly really put things in perspective for me tonight. I was just getting seriously annoyed with the TV for cutting out during the programme I've been watching all evening (Pop Idol - it's a British thing) and so I came online. I'm really glad I did. I completely agree with everything you've said and I really appreciate you making me see things as they truly are. Thank you.

Didn't you hear? American lives are more valuable than the lives of those of other nations. That is why it is not a big deal. Why did I just do that? I HATE when people do that... Anyway, what's with Osama? If anybody seriously thinks this guy is some master of disguise that can't be found they are just being naive. GPS can read an automobile's license plate from space, yet it has been 6 months and still no trace of this guy? Convenient? Is the huge funding for the war too good to stop it anytime soon? Btw I'm Canadian. I don't know anything.

Right on Wil. Seconds after I heard the news of the attacks on the towers I said, "Oh no, the wrong people are going to die because of this." I respect all the men women that are doing their job and fighting our country, they are our heroes. But, the leadership that sent them over there to do these things is at the very least misguided. There is nothing heroic about what the administration is doing. Unfortunately, it seems that this course of action is always what happens. I wonder if there is something in the mind of the politician that automatically leads to this. I don't know. Anyway, good post Wil.

Drew: you're correct. I didn't mean to, by omission, minimize the losses in any other conflicts.

My position on civillian deaths remains the same.

oops... my /sarcasm didn't how up. that's what I hate.

How long has the U.S. been in conflict with the Taliban? Because the President get's 90 days to do whatever he wants with our troops before it is suppose to be declared a war.

Yeah, the killing of civilians is bad, but when you are in a war, which this is, innocent people are going to die. The people that we should be blaming are the Taliban. Without their attack we would've never gone into Afganistan to fight this war in the first place.

25,000-35,000 killed at Dresden

Wil,this is not a war this a police action against not a country,but a people and a way of life.The civillian's are also raised to be terrorist's and would kill you just because of who you are.I understand your position and respect that but be careful of those you doin't know.

Hey Wil,

It very much bothers me that this action against 'terrorism'is being called a war yet no war has been declared by congress. It makes me suspicious of the administrations motives.
Ít is shocking that so many innocent people are being killed in this conflict. Our modern weapons are a lot more sohisticated nowadays and supposedly they can hit a very specific target, why then are so many people being killed by accident?'
Ón the one hand I want my government to take action against terrorism. On the other hand it seems there has to be a more effective way to do so.

There is one major difference that you forgot to mention. The planes that hit the WTC were targeted at civilians wheras our bombs were not. Our bombs accidentally killed civilians.

Granted, dead is dead. But, in my mind at least, the intentions of the killer mean a lot.

For example: Someone gets shot in the head while hunting. If the gun was aimed at a deer but the aim was bad, it's a tragedy. If the gun was aimed at another human and the aim was good, that's cold blooded murder.

Unfortunately more civilains die in a war than soldiers. Soldiers made the choice to put their lives on the line. Amazing that it isn't
"important" anymore to inform people of what's
really going on.

The US hasn't declared war because they can only declare war against another nation and in this case, there isn't a nation to blame (directly, anyway).

While I do feel for the innocents dying, and I'm sure that it is only going to cause more children to grow up hating the US, there isn't a way around it. The military is doing everything possible to minimize the civilian causalties while still effectively fighting the war. It sucks, but all war does.

Yup.

War sucks.

Even things remarkably similar to war suck.

Fighting sucks.

Death sucks.

Anger sucks.

Hate sucks.

So many things suck. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to tell who was evil before they kill them? Wouldn't it be nice if they bad guys had some sort of insignia? Wouldn't it be nice if we knew who the frick the bad guys were? Aw, hell wouldn't it be nice if there were no bad guys?

Damn, back to the real world. I'm going to make ice cream. I'd like to think that the world would be a nicer place if everyone could make ice cream today (or just go buy some).

Hey, if some psycho militiant org took over our country, would you be willing to give your life so that others could be free?

I'd like to think that I would.

Gotta go buy cream, and pizza. And vaccuum.

Vaccuuming sucks, but the alterntive sucks more.

O

Wil, have you ever seen the movie "Swordfish"? Two very good points were brought up:

1. Would you kill one innocent child to cure, say, cancer? How about 10 children? A 100? A 1000? You see where this is going.

2. The "west" must do whatever is necessary to show the world that terrorism will not be tolerated. If "they" kill 5,000 Americans, then America should kill 50,000 of them. They blow up a building, America blows up 10. The message must be sent loud and clear that these cowardly actions will not be stood for. The message must also be sent that countries loyal to terrorists, providing funding or safe havens for terrorists, must re-evaluate their position or face negative consequences.

Or, we can all hold hands, pray, and sing cumbayah for world peace.

I just hope your wife and kids aren't in the next tall building.

Better yet, get off your ass, drop out of the next trek film, grab the wife and kids, and hop on a plan to Afganistan. Sell your house, ebay all your trek shit, and donate your cash to rebuilding those poor, "abused-by-America" folks over there.

Hey buddy, actions speak louder than words.

Violence begets violence. I quote one who phrased it much better than me:

"Perhaps this final act was meant to clench a lifetime's argument that nothing comes from violence, and nothing ever could.

For all those born beneath an angry star

Lest we forget how fragile we are..."

What a total bunch of bullshit. I am sick of you radical left winged assholes bitch about innocent civilians dying. Thousands died September 11th and you bitch and moan about shit that dosn't even compare to the attrocities that happened on Sept 11th, and you offer no fucking solution. What were we supposed to do after Sept 11th, jam our thumbs up our asses and watch a Star Trek TNG marthon on the Sci Fi Channel while Bin Laden plots to blow our asses up again? Its thinking like yours that let Hitler take over half of Europe in World War 2. If we didn't do anything then, you'd be speaking German right now.

Have you watched the news lately and seen Afghans thanking the US, playing music, buying t.v.s, singing dancing and all that shit? Why don't you bitch about these regimes like the Taliban, like Iraq, Iran, Somalia, and Colombia? You can't bitch about your government in those countries Mr Wheaton. Granted nobody should die from any war or terrorism, but thats just not realistic. The US military does do its best to MINIMIZE civilian casualties. They could have bombed the whole place into the stone age like the Soviets in the 80's, but they didn't. The US is not as bad as you depict them.

There are assholes everywhere in the world, and some only understand one language, violence. You can't reason with whackjobs that are willing to kill themselves to kill innocents. You bitch, but offer no solution. Life sucks, shit happens, people are assholes, DEAL WITH IT.

Wil I agree with you, that is what bothers me too.

I think that, despite those who have died so far, the out come will be worth it. These people will no longer be under the rule of the Taliban—they'll be free.

We will help them rebuild, and even though that can't replace those who were killed, it will at least suppliment it.

What the one person said about cancer...I would kill 1000 people if it meant I could eradicate cancer forever. To kill a few thousand civillians accidentally in a quest to save the lives and secure the futures of tens of thousands more is a trade off that must be made.

I just met somebody who was bombed by Americans in the nineties (fast war, peace-keeping deal, you might have forgotten. Yugoslavia? It's in Europe). This is quite a long story but it's illuminating.

She's a Serbian filmmaker I met at a festival in Sweden last month. Very clever woman; cosmopolitan; intellectual. Even during the war American entertainment was available in former Yugoslavia and she told us a story of how she had taken her daughter to see "George of the Jungle", how she had to explain to the kid that even though the American government is bombing them, the American people is not necessarily the enemy. Which the kid accepted. But even though this woman was trying to be rational about it, she noted how the few months of bombing made her bitter and filled her with a kind of rage she didn't believe herself capable of. She described how she had the impulse to scream at American tourists on the streets of Budapest (which is in another country, she went there right after the war, look at a map).

In all fairness, I think the American bombings in Afghanistan have been among the "best" yet. The number of civilians killed is relatvely small; the precision of the bombings occasionally miraculous (based on very random eye-witness accounts in European media). The problem is, that killing a few hundred or a few thousand civilians is more than enough to create a new cycle of resentment.

The Serbian lady got over it, because she works in an industry where she meets representatives of other nations all the time - including Americans. Makes it more real.

Tactical studies of WWII seem to pretty much prove that there is absolutely no gain in bombing cities. Precision attacs on infrastructure is one thing, but when that turns into trying to crush the spirit of the civilian population it's another kind of sport. I believe the technical term is "pissing contest".

Now everybody knows the US has the biggest bomb, and nobody wants nobody to ever use it again. This alone should be a reason to stay the hell away from pissing contests. (And, incidentally, to try and megotiate peace between India and Pakistan, but never mind that).

And the other thing is, the terrorists dropped two bombs on the US. That was a terrible, terrible, tragedy. Multiply the rage you feel and the patriotic commitment that spawned by a thousand, and you'll start to get a picture of why so many nations have a grievance with the US to start with.

Even though the targets America has bombed might have been enemies, or rogue nations, at the time, the civilian population has a nasty habit of not feeling that way at all. It only takes the one guy to be pushed over some kind of edge to have yet another dangerous terrorist on your hands.

This was incrdibly depressing to think about. Not much anyone can do about it either. Except for you Americans, who get to vote.

Oh yeah I forgot, your congress - your elected representatives - didn't get to vote on the whole war thing. My bad. Yea democracy.

wil i'm dissapointed with your potty mouth :(

Cody,

It weren't the Taliban that attacked the US. Evidence still points to Al Quaeda, and Bin Laden who is/was hiding in Afghanistan, which was under the Taliban rule. The Taliban themself didn't attack the US.

Okay, now that's out of the way, I too oppose bombing any country, although my reasons are (besides ethical) more personal.

I am from Yugoslavia, which got bombed in '99. My grandmother's house partially collapsed because of the heavy raids - she was lucky that she heard the sirens go off and went to sleep outside, out of fear that the house might collapse. Civilians guarded the bridges (my grandmother and aunt were one of those guards) and still bridges were bombed. God knows how many people died like that.

What strikes me as odd is how quickly anything can become a military target. Army bases being attacked? I can understand that. Destroying the infrastructure still makes sense. Not a lot, but still.

But bombing children's hospitals, tv stations, trains and bridges with civilian guards, and Chinese embassies (even though that was a 'mistake'), what the hell were they thinking?

I was glad that Al Jazeera had been in Afghanistan from the beginning so the world could see what happened there, not some biased figures and graphs from CNN (that are retracted 2 years later). I hope people will think twice before ever bombing another country.

Sub,

Actions do speak louder than words, but they don't necessarily get the right message across.

Think about this one, "An eye for an eye, leaves the whole world blind."

Brian Gerrard,

The media only shows you what they want you to see. I'm sure that there must be plenty of Afghans left that either support Al Quaeda or the Taliban.

Media=propaganda. I've seen it happen with the civil war in Yugoslavia, where they failed to mention that Muslims and Croatians also participated in mass murder (I've lost half of my family that lived in Mrkonjic Grad in Bosnia)

And don't start about whose lives were more important and where died more or less, because as I recall, even to this day CHILDREN are dying in Iraq, because of the bombings there (the depleted uranium causes birth defects). I vaguely remember that the number of dead CHILDREN ran in the millions. Still dead is dead is dead.

It's all terrible, no matter where and how many people died.

I agree that innocent civilians being killed as a result of war that has nothing to do with them is terrible. Of course it is.

I'm not sure what the alternatives are.

There is a difference between those killed on Sept. 11 and the innocent Afghans who have been accidentally killed. Of course, it's no difference to those who have died and to their loved ones, but there is a difference. Those killed on Sept. 11 didn't get killed accidentally by someone targeting U.S. military installations. Those killed *were* the targets.

In any case, war is terrible for a thousand reasons, but that innocents are killed as a by-product is one of the biggest. Again, I just don't know what the alternatives are. There are unfortunately, some instances where war is just about the only option. (Although I certainly agree that there are instances when the war option is used a little too hastily, when other options are available, as well.)

I have to agree with some of the others who posted before. There is a big difference between targeting civilians and accidentally killing them. We support the people of Afganistan, we want them on our side, and when we make a mistake, the government usually steps up and takes the blame. I remember several times when the military would admit that they made an error while planning military targets and civilians were killed. It's not like we're doing it on purpose or trying to cover it up.

We have every right to be in Afganistan. Mistakes will be made and the best we can do is apologize, make reparations, assist the populace, and try to help their new government as much as possible. It is unfortunate that our world favors survival of the fittest over turning the other cheek, but that is how it is. If you want to survive, you have to defend yourself.

Wil, I'm behind you 100%
two wrongs don't make it a right!!
I mean for me I'm all for peace. I mean if we want to show Bin Laden something, I want him to see kids from all races, creeds and nationalities playing with each other (at the age of 5)
by that age kids don't care about the color of their skin...they are SO innocent!
We need to reunite instead of fight!
Hey great slogan!!!

Wil I don't blame ya for being SO upset!!!!

"Those killed on Sept. 11 didn't get killed accidentally by someone targeting U.S. military installations. Those killed *were* the targets."

This is an excellent point, which has been made many times here, and elsewhere, and somehow, I missed it. I'm really glad that you pointed this out, because it *really* puts things into perspective.

FWIW, I'm really not trying to start a fight with anyone here, regardless of whether you agree with me or not. I was just thinking about this, and I write about what's on my mind. Let's lay off the name-calling, okay?

And the "if you don't like it move to [country currently being bombed]" is so laughable, it doesn't even warrant rebuttal.

Daniel Kratz: Very well said. Comments like yours are one of the reasons I write about this stuff in the first place.

Sincerely, thank you to those of you who have brought up this very important point.

I'm tempted to change the post, to reflect this revelation, but I'll leave it as is, and just say, here, for the record, that I stand behind my point, but the way that I made it is way, way off.

Innocent people do not deserve to die because of a conflict between nations, but until we can settle things like this with a WWF-style cage match between the Al-Qaeda and...I dunno...some members of Congress maybe...we'll still be sending people who had nothing to do with the original argument over to kill and be killed. Our people get killed, their people get killed and at the end of the day there are more dead people, more angry people, and more people who feel that [whoever died] got exactly what they deserved.

As far as "collateral damage" not bothering people, I think people in general are bothered just as much about the civilians being killed as they are about "troops" being killed: i.e. "Gee, what a shame...oooh, Millionaire's on!" The plain fact is, most people just don't really care about much of anything as long as their individual lives don't change. The plain fact is, everyone dies.

Gah. I'm awfully cheerful today.

Americans are systematically taught to hate all arabic people by the awful corporate media. Whenever images of Arabs (or Persians) are shown on the awful american media, they are shown on a horse shooting guns into the air..

I ask you this:

Don't these people ever do normal things like go to work and celebrate holidays? OF COURSE THEY DO, but typical americans (who are either unwilling or unable to question the images they are shown every day) are not allowed to see this.

This "war" on terrorism is just another extension of US foreign policy in a region (coincidentally I'm sure) that happens to have a lot of energy reserves. Bush talked about bombing Afghanistan BEFORE 9/11, that just gave him a "moral imperative" to do so. Let's see if we help them set up the pipeline Bush was hoping for before 9/11.

Bush keeps talking about how there is no set date when this war will end. I'm SURE the lesson learned by Bush Jr. from his father was that people forget about "glorious military victories" when the economy is in the toilet. And I'm sure Bush will drag out this war against middle eastern culture until RIGHT BEFORE the next presidential election cycle. Bush might be stupid, but even he (or someone truly smart like Colon Powell) is smart enough to give him that advice.

It's also interesting to see our administrations backpedal during these times. They spend years turning the arabs into the devil, and then when arab-american citizens suffer abuses in these times they like to pretend they never planted the original seed of hate.

It will be interesting to see how bad our economy gets before people start telling Bush to shut up already about this war. Interesting indeed.

Rich...

Hi Wil!

Well I just want to say that I agree with you. It has not necesary to kill all of those people if they had nothing to do. But as you can see these events, as tragic as they have been, have also helped all of those poor afgan women. They have found freedom. Now the most simple things we do on a regular day are the most exciting and trilling events afang women are living. Maybe this war has killed may inocent, but it has also saved may lives. I once read that the average life spand of a afgan women is 37 years!! that is very frigthning.

Another thing I will like to mention is that these event have not only afected the US but it's neighboring countries as well. I live in a border city with the US, and I have to cross to the US every day just to go to school!!. After the event of sep 11, inspection to cross the international bridge has been very intensive. In the past I used to make 40 min to cross now I have to wait more than 1:30. The consecuense of having so many cars on the crossing bridge for a great period of time has caused the death of 2 children. They died because the levels of carbon monoxide gas were to great!!. When I hear this I was devastaed!!

Now I just pray things like these don't happen again!!

Okay, after much consideration, I'm amending the front page.

Dang it, Wil, I'm going to start caching your pages somewhere so that people can see what it *used* to say before you changed entries. C'mon, add an addendum entry! :-)

Hey all, just a thought...

Everybody familiar with the whole controversy now about the statue being erected to commemorate the three NYPD officers who raised a flag at Ground Zero? (Three white officers being turned into a white officer, an African-American officer, and a Latino officer). Ok, call this a debatable attempt to inculcate further interracial solidarity in the U.S. So, aside from the fact that it's being debated on grounds of historical accuracy, has anyone else noticed that racial issues (as far as they affect African-Americans and Latinos) have been put on a "back-burner" so to speak, at least in terms of the media and current politics?
Everybody's got the new enemy now, and the problem is making sure we don't associate those in our homeland who may look to us like him with him.
The point I'm trying to make (badly, I might add) is that it is human nature to need someone (or several someones) by which to define one's own group/society. Look at any history book or evolutionary biology book to see that. Everyone in the U.S. now has a common enemy, so we are no longer dividing ourselves out of lack thereof. This might seem obvious to most of you, but what I'm getting at is that the "innocents" who are dying in Afghanistan are no more or less "innocent" than anybody else. Lots of countries have very legitimate reasons for considering the U.S. as the enemy by which they define themselves as a group, and had little problem doing so before Sept. 11. And just because the Taliban didn't directly set into motion the attacks, didn't mean that they didn't help to cause them. And btw, just because we've driven the Taliban out doesn't mean that the Afghans will be free. After all, look at what happened after we helped drive the Russians out.
This is just a drawn out way of me saying that most adults aren't innocent. They may be innocent of actions, but not of beliefs. And maybe beliefs shouldn't get you killed, but then neither should complacency, and look where that's gotten us.

It seems to me that war wasn't formally declared by Congress because then -- perish the thought!! -- the pros and cons of doing so would actually have to be discussed in a public forum! (by people elected on a much more generous margin than our President, too... but I'm getting off topic here).

I think there are 2 reasons (aside from accessible, public debate) behind not declaring war:

First, it seems that if we did so, then actual conventions of war would have to be followed (e.g. Geneva etc.) This, in particular, is a sticking point for the many who are calling the Guantanamo detention camp "inhumane." While I disagree with the assertion that there are human rights violations going on there, how anybody can call the detainees there anything other than Prisoners of War boggles my mind.

Second, if you follow the Dubya rhetoric, war was "declared on us" so retaliating is par for the course. Ergo, we don't "need" to make a formal war declaration.

The question you pose, Wil, is logical and one that I had hoped would be discussed more extensively in the media here. Unfortunately it seems to have been overlooked. And I belive it is perfectly defensible to question the actions of our (so-called) leaders while at the same time being patriotic - supportive of our armed forces - and sympathetic toward the victims of 9.11.

I dare anyone who is not bothered by "collateral damage" in Afghanistan to read Howard Zinn's article, "The Others," in the Nation:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020211&s=zinn

Wil, I like your wording, and the examples you used. It's exactly the way I'm thinking about this 'collateral damage' issue.

Chris, you mean like what happened the Christians in the Roman Empire and the Jews in the Middle-Ages? Very interesting idea indeed.

Although I don't get that "people are less innocent" part, do you mean that members of one group tend to think that people of another group are "lesser" and therefore "less innocent"?

Like the Romans who thought that the Christians were cannibals and used that as a justication for prosecuting them?

Also voting for addendum entry. That way the rest of us who took exception to what you wrote won't look like we're making stuff up and putting words in your mouth :):)

Then again, we can just have free rein to misquote you horribly, then just say that you changed what you originally said ;)

That'll teach me for not using the preview function.

For some reason, I feel a need to point out that the US is billed as "government of the people, by the people, and for the people." Whether you believe that this is the case with the US today, a lot of The People really, really wanted BLOOD after 9/11. I mean a LOT of really Vocal People. Even some people who later, after calming down a bit, thought, "Hrm, maybe I ought to slow down a bit and not just start yelling Nuke the Mideast after all," people who ordinarily would consider themselves quite humanitarian, turned a bit bloodthirsty after 9/11.

Lots of very vocal people still want blood, and it's hard to blame them, especially those who've lost families. It is a bit of a vicious circle, though, in a live by the sword, die by the sword, reap what you sow sort of sense, though.

Why, oh, why can't I stop posting to this discussion??? :-)

P.S. And if we can't cache the pre-change page, can I post the "diff" in the comments? :-)

It's 1:34 AM here.. Damn you Wil, for starting interesting discussions and depriving me of my precious sleep :)

Sadly, It is human nature to create such horrors.
I wish that the Good could prevail every time - but that's not reality. My greatest fear is this - That such conflicts will result in a nuclear war - thus ending all life on this earth.

Violence begats violence. But that's an easy thing to say sitting here in my cozy office.

We have no control over others, only ourselves and our children, and that is for what, 30 seconds at a time? :) We MUST teach our children to be kind to everyone regardless of their faith, colour, nationality etc.

This whole thing is bigger than you and I and we all need to take care of each other and be kind.

-nicole

Zorya:
Re: "more or less innocent"

I guess what I just meant by that was that "innocent" is such a strong word to bandy about without clarification. By the time a person becomes an adult -- especially in a very religious society -- a person has become so much a product of his or her own environment and culture (I'm dancing now around the point of cultural relativism, which is more complicated than I'm willing to grapple with right now) that using a term like"innocent" amid a conversation of politico/religio/cultural enemies and actions resulting from that animosity is IMHO too simplistic. Maybe I'm being pedantic, but NONE of Us or of Them (ooh, the Floydian undertones) can POSSIBLY be termed innocent in this cultural clash. I mean, come on. Babies are innocent. Most lower forms of life are innocent. Neither we nor they are innocent, even if through a process of subtle or not-so-subtle brainwashing.

Hi Wil,

It's so hard to know where to stand on this issue. On the one hand, I agree that killing innocent civilians is wrong. But as so many people have pointed out, our civilians *were* the targets, while theirs just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I don't believe in an eye for an eye, but something has to be done so that they cannot have another chance for a massive strike such as sept 11th. I find it hard to believe that our military is having such a difficult time locating Bin Laden. I sincerely hope that Bush doesn't drag this out, just to keep his rating high. And, for the record, it is possible to support the military and Bush's actions against Afghanistan, without actually thinking he's a good president. I would give my support to whomever had won the election through this, because this is a time when we need unity, but I think that Bush has ruined the economy, and will do his best to ruin the environment,, as long as Big Business benefits. Let's face it, he is their president, not ours. Sorry, I know that was a little off topic, but my rantings tend to get the best of me!! ;)

Actually, Nicole, what I think we need is to be found by a race of aliens so we can just transfer all our hate and mistrust onto them. Only then can there be world peace. That, or we just genetically engineer that need for the outsider out of our basic chemistry. Thanks Wil for putting me into Doom&Gloom mode. ;)

Wil,

Firstly, thankyou for being brave enough to post your feelings on your site. The government, media, and propoganda could and probably will slate you for it.

I am English, and since 9/11 our 'government' has declared our country to be US best friend in this issue. The media has identified what happened in fine detail, they have identified who did it, in fact the full when,where,who,how, but interestingly not WHY ?

Having travelled extensively in the middle/far east, I'm afraid I have some bad news for some of the advocates of truth, justice and the American way. The US is not just disliked in these countries, they are absolutely hated. Why ? Well, try Korea - Vietnam - Iraq - Iran - Palestine - Somalia - El Salvador - Nicaragua - need I go on !
The 'third world' views the US as bully boys who wander around the world imposing themselves upon any country they decide they have an issue with, strip that country of it's wealth and live the life of luxury in the US. Take from the poor and give to the rich. Osama Bin Laden is not the root of 9/11, he is just a symptom and focus of what a lot of the world think.
Was Bin Laden a terrorist when he was blowing up Russian tanks in the 1980's. No - he was a freedom fighter then. Believe this - in the muslim world Mr Bin Laden is a hero ! That is not a joke - children in muslim countries have posters of this man on their bedroom wall.
The answer the American government has produced for 9/11 has absolutely not helped the situation either. What happened on that day was dispicable in the extreme, and my thoughts and sympathies are entirely with the family and friends of the victims of that attack. The answer however is not to go and blow the fuck out of a weak defenceless country. Mr Bin Laden is a billionaire. Do you really think a man with his resources is going to stay in Afghanistan.
This is a terrifying demonstration by the US that if someone hurts them, the consequences will be devastating. While the people of the US may sit at home thinking they won't try that again, the truth is that the actions of the US have made these countries/organisations even more determined to exact revenge on the US. Violence begets violence.
There are two scenes I have seen on the TV that just about sum up the current situation.
The first is of an Iraqi mother who had a newspaper which we were told was reporting the recent US increase in military spending of nearly $50 billion. The mother was using the newspaper to wrap her baby in to keep it warm.

The second is the sight of the Pakistan president welcoming the US military advisors to his country while outside the civilians are rioting and demonstrating against the US attack on Afghanistan. Why wasn't that countries leaders heeding the obvious message his populous was portraying. Fear ?

Here in Europe more and more people are questioning the actions and motives of the US government. This is the nightmare apocalypse we all feared in the 70's , 80's. The peoples of the third world are hungry, humiliated, and angry. They have nothing to lose. Yes some of those countries do have weapons of Mass Destruction, and why the hell shouldn't they, lets not forget that there is only one country in the world that has used atomic weapons in anger, perhaps that country should be the state banned from having these terrible weapons.
This is a war no side can win. Unless the US proposes to annihilate all the muslim countries in the world. So, what is the answer?
How about instead of increasing the Military budget by $50 billion, spending that money on paying off some of the third world debt. How about the US ceasing to provide enormous military backup to rebel groups they want to install as 'puppet governments' in foreign countries ?
How about stopping multinational organisations from exploiting the workers in foreign countries ?
How about the US using its enormous wealth and power in a benevolent fashion helping to solve some of the problems in developing countries, instead of building up a military arsenal to threaten the world with.
Perhaps then the rest of the world might see America with smiling eyes. But then perhaps that isn't on the Whitehouse agenda.
Be afraid, a storm is coming, and those who live by the sword .......

Chris: Yep. Gotta have someone to hate, after all. I think it's human nature. One of my favorite quotes on that topic is actually from Disney's Beauty and the Beast:

"We must kill what we don't understand because it scares us."

Big ugly green aliens with slime would be my choice. :-)

Ladies, Gentlemen, Those who aren't sure....

I've been reading the above notes, and although I agree that it's an important distinction that the terrorists were targetting the people in the World Trade Center, and the US military is not specifically targetting Afghan civilians, I don't know that the distinction does much to absolve the guilt of killing hundreds or thousands of civilians for the purpose of trying to kill a group of terrorists.

For those of you who were reading Mr. Wheaton's (SIR!) page just after the destruction of the World Trade Center, you're already quite familiar with my views on the whole "war against terrorism." For the newer monkeys, it's unfortunate that the old comments sections were lost in the WW.N "dark ages," because a lot of people made a lot of valid points. Although the vast majority of people in the country seemed to support the war unconditionally at that point in time, the people here seemed to realize what would happen when trying to use bombs to target single individuals in a populated area.

Even now, a lot of things said here date back to that discussion. My "sheep" and "cattle" comments, the occasional mention of supporting the military but thinking the government is misguided, the discussion on whether or not it's right to support the government now, and the short tangent re: patriotism, for example.

If it's at all possible, Mr. Wheaton (SIR!), could You add links to a couple of those discussions for a few days, if the comments are recoverable? The general populace might find them interesting/enlightening not only from the standpoint of the present discussion, but also as an example of how well-behaved (almost) everyone was, despite how emotion-charged the discussion was at the time....

JSc

Wil,

I very much agree with your comments and always enjoy reading them (even when I don't agree - which is rare). I do think though that someone should point out something that seems to be being overlooked in all this. And that is:

We're the fucking idiots who put the Taliban in power in the first place!

http://www.wilwheaton.net/greymatter/archives/greymatter.php is the index

http://www.wilwheaton.net/greymatter/archives/00000041.php is the first post that I made about it, entitled "The World Has Turned"

Now, you can read them, but if you try to add comments, the window will spin and die, so I wouldn't suggest trying to make any comments there. You *could* make some here, with a link to the old discussion, if you really wanted to.

And I think it bears repeating once again, because I don't want there to be any misunderstanding: I grieve deeply for the victims of 9/11, and their surviving families, and my thoughts and questions about the action currently being taken by the US government is not meant, in any way, to minimize or marginalize, or dishonor their memory, or the memories of the valiant firemen and others who lost their lives trying to save them.

of course the victims were targets themselves. anytime someone is killed intentionally they are a target. they were targets, capitalism was a target, we were targets, western ideals were targets. everything, hence the term "terrorists."
and other countries will always hate us. always! that's just how it is. i don't think we should conform to please every country that hates us. especially ones that supports actions against us like 9-11. and don't tell me that any gov't in the mid-east was "sorry" for the victims. i don't care how much money they donated to "save face", it was their back-handed sympathy that stood out to me.

I think there's something else that needs to be considered here. Yes, we bombed the hell out of Afghanistan, and killed civilians in the process. What would have happened if we didn't? I believe that over the course of, say, a year since the US bombing started, FEWER civilians will had died in Afghanistan than if we didn't do it. I can't back this up, and there's really no way to know for sure, but now the government there isn't (as) oppressive, (much more) humanitarian aid can get into the country, and I believe over all the bombing saved civilian lives. I'm not saying this is justification for doing it, just an interesting point to consider.

Quote from Brian Gerard:

What a total bunch of bullshit. I am sick of you radical left winged assholes bitch about innocent civilians dying. Thousands died September 11th and you bitch and moan about shit that dosn't even compare to the attrocities that happened on Sept 11th, and you offer no fucking solution. What were we supposed to do after Sept 11th, jam our thumbs up our asses and watch a Star Trek TNG marthon on the Sci Fi Channel while Bin Laden plots to blow our asses up again? Its thinking like yours that let Hitler take over half of Europe in World War 2. If we didn't do anything then, you'd be speaking German right now.

***

Hmmm, and I suppose that all the German people who blindly supported Hitler without questioning him had nothing to do with his success. Question away, Wil - it's people that freak out the second anyone dares question the government that scare the sh*t out of me...like we're all supposed to sit there quietly and let GWB and company use this "war" to justify attacking any country we want (i.e., the oh-so-well thought out "axis of evil"). Sounds a hell of a lot closer to Nazi Germany to me...but what do I know, since I refuse to believe that American casualities are supposed to be more horrifying simply because they're American. We certainly didn't care about anyone else's terrorist-related "atrocities" until it happened to us.

Flame away, people - I had my daily dose of asbestos with my cereal.

Chris, very interesting point.

If I understand you correctly, you were talking about (I'm generalizing a bit, but I don't know the exact name for it) 'cultural backgrounds' (education, culture, religion & the role religion plays in one's life, how one's raised etc?) -> and the effect it has on the way one thinks about all this. And since no one, except for very young children/babies, isn't affected by this, no one's innocent?

That's very interesting indeed. But a bit too hard for me to discuss now, since my brain is gone at the moment - I'm practically sleeping at this point. You should make a topic at the soapbox, maybe we could discuss about it when I'm awake :)

What Mark says is true, about how the world sees the USA as a big bully. I'm not saying that it's *true*, but a lot of countries look at it like that.

Attacking Afghanistan was the only way to take away Al-Queada's ability to attack America. At least temporarily.
It is the president's job to prevent attacks on American people. If bombing Afghanistan to disrupt the terrorist's plans to continue to attack our country killed a few innocents, well that can't be helped.
What happened on 9/11 was only a taster. Did you not see their training camps? They have thousands of terrorists in training to launch similar and much worse attacks. Maps of U.S. nuclear power plants and water reservoirs were found in Afghanistan by U.S. soldiers. That gives us an indication of what kind of condition the U.S. would be in now if Bush had not sent in the military.

The terrorists could and would and maybe someday will crash a plane into a nuclear power plant. Millions would die.

Wil, ask yourself how many Nuclear power stations are in California.
Ask yourself how safe your dronking water will be tomorrow. There are countless ways the terrorists can attack us.

Bush has to do everything in his power to stop that. He was elected to protect the American people and even though all lives are equal, his priorties have to lie with the protection of us.

Don't underestimate the dangers we are in.
I'm glad he doesn't.

No-one (except Al-Queda) likes to see innocent people killed anywhere but given the choice, I'd rather not see terrorists having a field day crashing our planes into New York, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston, my house, your house, childrens' schools, packed sports stadium, power stations etc....

Hm....

Having reread Mr. Wheaton's (SIR!) initial post (on the main page), I have to bring up one point that even He seems to be forgetting at the moment.

The "war on terrorism" is supposedly a war on **TERRORISTS**, not a war between nations. As such, the idea of national borders ceases to have any meaning, and it is misguided to think in terms of a "war between nations" when considering a war against terrorism. The traditional ideas regarding war become irrelevant and, in fact, dangerous to the US just as much as to other nations. The terrorists, on the other hand, profit immeasurably if the US and allies continue to use traditional tactics against the terrorists.

Consider.... Terrorist group "A" are hiding within some city. For convenience, we'll say it's Kandahar. The US government says, "hey! We can kill them all by dropping lots and lots of bombs!" So they do that, and kill (for convenience) 10% of the terrorists in their first assault. At the same time, a huge number of civilians have their homes destroyed, and family members maimed, crippled, or killed in the bombing because the terrorists were smart enough to hide within a city.

So what happens. Will these civilians who just got crapped on by america be happy, and say "Well, I lost Mom and Dad and little Timmy can't walk anymore, but at least they killed some terrorists!" or will the civilians say "What the hell are the americans thinking? I'm no terrorist! Why are they bombing my city?"

Me, I'd lean toward the second as far more likely than the first. And what will the average civilian do? Probably cry over their losses, complain about america, and go on with life. Then again, there is a small percentage who will be so enraged at the attack that they will join the terrorists against america.

End result? Maybe a few less terrorists. A lot of pissed off civilians. Destroyed homes. Far more dead civilians than terrorists because the terrorists are such a tiny minority no matter where they go.

I often wonder why it's rarely mentioned that what the US is doing right now falls under the UN's definition of 'terrorism'...

For the innocent people who have died, I am sad for them. No matter that their nationality is.

Yes, many Afghans who have died, and they were not killed on purpose. But they were killed because our military is careless. We don't consider them to be human, but as second class citizens. How do I know this? The media reports protray the news of innocent casulties abroad so cold, so calm. You would almost think they were talking about toasters. Our society shrugs it off. Underneath all the political correctness, we consider Afghans citizens to have a "secondary responsability" because we were attacked by "their people". We forget they were victims, victims no one cared to know about before 9/11. You never hear any talk of how to prevent innocent casulties from happening in the future, never any talk about learning from our mistakes. It's an outrage to me.

Did not mistake my sympathy to be apathy for Americans. My mother works in the Pentagon. If the pilot of that plane decided to hit the side to the right, she would have been a dead woman.

I care for all people. I do not fall for the extreme nationalism bullshit that makes Americans better than others. One world, one human race.

"I care for all people. I do not fall for the extreme nationalism bullshit that makes Americans better than others. One world, one human race."

If only more people thought like this...

hi wil,

i love that you speak your mind so fearlessly. i am so sick of watching celebrities having to make public apologies just for questioning u.s. foreign policy. probably because their publicist told them they had to appease the american need for revenge. the american victims of 9/11 got way more financial aid than the afghani victims. the difference between financial aid received by american and afghani victims is astrofuckingnomical.

i'm not a total pacifist or anything either, i mean, i'm a kick-boxer and wing chun fighter, so i'm no stranger to that lust for revenge, but for the love of god man, must we all become bloody, murdering, savages?

i wonder if this will be enough for people to finally turn to more feminist/socialist politics.

how many more people have to die?

a concerned canadian

peace out
j-la

your right wil they shouldn't be killing those innocent people!! hopfuly this all will end soon......

"The media reports protray the news of innocent casulties abroad so cold, so calm. You would almost think they were talking about toasters. Our society shrugs it off. "
_This is not a flame._ I just feel the need to remind us of the Iraqi populace video'd revelling in the streets at the news of the Towers' crash. EVEN IF they didn't know the extent of the catastrophe, they were cheering at the loss of American lives.
BOTTOM LINE: People are not as concerned about deaths occurring in an enemy country - regardless of whether they are "innocent" - as they are about deaths of people who are considered friendly. It's basic Tit for Tat.

"We forget they were victims, victims no one cared to know about before 9/11."

Too true. It infuriates me to see Bush and co. acting like the great liberators, especially when they take credit for helping the women of Afghanistan. Before 9/11, they could not care less about what the Taliban were doing to women. Now they're patting themselves on the back as if they acted not only out of revenge but out of a deep-seated desire to unseat an immoral regime. So many people were concerned about the Taliban before 9/11, but no one in the government (this Administration or the last, to be fair) deemed it important enough then to pay attention. If not for 9/11, the Taliban would still be in power and we'd still be making back-door deals with them. Such hypocrisy.

Chris-

This isn't a flame, either :)

Remember when the Lakers won the NBA championship, a couple of years ago? A bunch of idiots decided to set some cars on fire, and act like jerks.

If you watched the news here, and weren't familiar with the geography of LA, you'd think that the whole city was going up in flames, and everyone was out of their mind.

I live just 20 minutes from downtown, and my whole neighborhood was completely quiet, except for the tinny sound of Britney Spears coming out of a neighbor's radio a few houses away.

Would it be accurate to say that all Laker fans were idiots who set things on fire? Yes, if you'd only seen that news footage of the 5 blocks around the Staples Center.

See what I'm going for, here?

and one more thing to think about...Bush and Co would LOVE to march into Baghad (sic?), and finish daddy's war...and didn't that footage of Iraqi's dancing and singing make everyone's blood boil?

Enough to say, "Let's turn Iraq to glass, when we're done with Afghanistan?"

Totally not a flame, but just something to think about.

I sympathise with you Wil that there are civilians dying in this war (and yes, even though there is no declaration, this IS a war), but I don't see how we can design a bomb that is compact, yet deadly enough to kill a single person. I also realize that there have been a few mistaken bombings in this conflict. The errors of computer guidance systems are inevidable. No computer is perfect, it only does what it is told. My point is, I'd like to hear what you think about how they could develop a weapon that could deliver its payload on a target without during minimal damage on a surrounding area.

F*%$ You, I won't do what'cha told me!!!

MEDIA PROPOGANDA MY ASS!! The American media can report about the US president getting blow jobs in the oval office, about the the bush twins using fakes to get drunk, they can report on any damn thing they want. You people that claim that the INDEPENDANT MEDIA is full of propoganda are full of horse shit. They have a freedom of speech and exercise it, and openly criticize our government, as opposed to STATE CENSORED MEDIA, like in China, Iraq, Iran, and many other countries. If you left winged conspiracy theorists actually fucking believe that horse shit, then maybe you are watching too much Al Jazeera thinking that 9/11 was orchestrated by Jews and that Israel runs the US. You people who say this about the media need a serious wake up call.

Brian S Gerrard
-middle winged average joe american that can make up his own damn mind about shit due to facts and not what some ideological social group tells them what to think, like radical left and radical right winged assholes

"The first casualty of war is truth"

Hey Wil...

I think I'm pretty much on the opposite end of the political spectrum from you. I'd like to share with you this fact: most military members feel the same way you do about the killing of innocents. Even those killed accidently by US forces. Find a soldier or pilot who has accidently killed civilians, and I will show you a man who has probably had some long talks with the chaplain since then. Very much like a police officer who accidently hits a bystander during a shootout with armed felons. Perhaps we differ on what should be done to prevent these tragic deaths (i.e, we think training and better equipment and intelligence; you may think just stay home and play it safe,) but that's a different subject. You're OK, my man.

And another thing: the term "collateral damage" is NOT used by the military to describe the deaths of innocent civilians. I think that term is bandied about by the liberal press to make the military appear heartless. Collateral damage is generally considered good, like dropping a bomb on a hangar and getting the nearby fuel farm to blow up also. Killing innocent civilians is never good and never "acceptable."

I have this thought to add to this topic: a lot of people here are pointing out that the people in WTC, the Pentagon, and the hijacked aircraft were the targets. Were. As in past-tense.

Wrong. We are STILL the targets. And this is not a war of nations. This is a war of ideologies. And we are still in grave danger.

Forget it at your own risk.

Oh, and Karol reminded me: nice Rage allusion. I also liked the line in Bulls on Parade about "that five sided fistagon." And "...they don't have to burn the books, they just remove 'em." Great music. But they don't know jack about the military.

Wil, I just wanted to say that I totally agree with you. I wish there was some way out there to support the military and not the "war on terrorism." All of these deaths of innocent people has been my major disagreeance since Day One, and I think you really covered everything that I didn't have the words to express.

>
That is sooo true. I think that Bush and the media and everyone are twisting our minds so that there's no room for sympathty for ANYONE in Afghanistan, and that's not right. Don't get me wrong, I think that what happened on 9-11 is horrible and terrible and an absolute nightmare, but I think Bush is over-exaggerating what we have to do to "get revenge." And that's all that it is -- revenge. We're bombing them because they don't like us, and they are letting us know. And this whole "no negotiations" thing is a load of BS. if these people were willing to negotiate, that means they were willing to give up and stop the deaths. But some big-headed W. decided to be big and mighty and respond with bombs.

I'm never offended by any of your thoughts/posts -- I find them thought-provoking and almost exactly how I feel. (I find it a little "scary" that a 15-year-old girl like myself thinks so much like Wil Wheaton, though....) My comments, however, may offend some people, and I'm sorry.

What disturbs me about all this is our countrys lack of respect for people outside the country. Do you know that thru NATO that there is an anti-missle aggreement that the US can blow up Nucular missles over Canada before they get to the US. the US government is too much a bully and the people of the US have to suffer. And it doesn't help that the media is in the governments pocket. I look at the information being given with the US patriotic slant and I just want to scream. I whatch the BBC news to get any kind of clear "tell it like it is" objective news. You think that the people of the US have control of our government, but it is really scarey how much we don't. We don't elect a president every four years ....we elect a King. The congressmen and Senitors are Lords and Dukes. I am so tired of seeing everything the US does as some kind of show production.

-I know this will probably get a lot of strange feedback if any one reads this part but,It unfortuanatly needs to be realized. Now over there in their world all the Taliban and those types I can't even begin to name the types- Afganistan and such they beleive what "there" Government tells them. Just like now they are thankfull that they have music back and t.v.yet there are those small remote areas that don't get the news and are still unfortunatly ruled over and guarded by Terrorists. These small villages of people who have to live in fear and are fed lies that make them want to turn and shoot every amarican the minute they get a gun in their hands because we have it so much better over here.I know that this can't hardly be considered as far as how my point gets across but in the movie "Three Kings"- Marc Walberg, George Clooney they are at a point were Marc W. Charactor gets captured and the Saudi man keeps assuming that "Marc" is from Arizona that were he lives everything is just fine for him- he then goes to tell "marc" about how his little child was killed in her sleep after a bombing causes the roof to collaps and cave in on the child's crib crushing him/her while sleeping- that's it the child is dead- the bombing he blamed the american's and for that he was going to not just die but suffer.
-Now while the fact remains that 9/11 wtc,pentagon and the other flight all of them people died- and people are quickly forgeting that already that some died slow and in pain the crews of those on the plains were cut w/razors and stabbed.
-the people in the buildings for so many of them that is their tomb! It is one huge Crime Scene! that No, errecting a statue is not enough but for some of us will have to do in the American Effort to show we haven't given up.To show our spirit hasn't broken.
....Yes war sucks
....Yes death sucks
....but life goes on and continues.The sun rises and sets, my children will grow and how I teach them to understand "and hopefully they will" will affect tomorrow.i don't understand War, nor do condone it/dissapprove of it. But it's been around since before my time, people spilling Valuable blood for their beleifs all in the name of their (deity).We could cut off the hands of theives and terrists so then we will know who they are, just like they used to cut off the prick of rapists.Or We could find them brand them with a burn like cattle- to be pelted by rocks from passers by to be singled out.Then we are back in the dark ages and yet it seems we've learned nothing.One of the first things said after the bombings by a reporter who's name escapes me,"We are paying for things our Parents and Grandparents did in past wars-" So when are we going to start getting it right? We can only hope to live a world "the utopia" but at the rate we are going it's not going to happen in this life time- I don't always have to perfect thing to say and I often have foot in mouth syndrome,
but how are we suppose to make it better?

to climb the walls over thousands of innocent afgani civillian casualties today, months after the first US bombing is missing a very obvious point: THE US HAS BEEN BOMBING AFGANISTAN FOR MONTHS. it amazes me when people act so shocked that innocents are dying in a war, when that's exactly why war is so frickin bad. do you feel misled by the nature of "surgical " strikes that actually kill good people instead of bad people? would you feel better if 10 people died than 1000? why? why do those ten deserve to die any more than the thousand? as much as this and previous administrations (also led by a Bush...hmmm) like to flaunt the sophistication of the US arsenal's accurate weaponry, let there be no mistake that a bomb is a bomb, and bombing equals killing. if you have a beef, you should back-date it to the first day of US air strikes. to complain now, February 8, that bombs are killing people is like someone who voted for Nader complaining about Bush being president.

what I'm trying to say is "duh."

Wil,
This is NOT a flame. :):) In fact it's not even a cherry-tipped piece of cardboard which might, if struck on a rough surface, result in a flame.

Of course one must take whatever is shown on the media, be the media openly controlled by one's own government or only ideologically, with a healthy helping of salt. All things are either exaggerated for the sake of news or hushed up for the sake of politics. Sure. Granted. My point wasn't that everyone in the Middle East, or even Iraq popped open a bottle of champagne and sang Old Lang Syne to the memory of the two towers. My point was to illustrate that human nature dictates that we will view more favorably the death of a construed enemy -- especially one at great distance -- than that of an ally. WHICH IS NOT TO SAY that everyone in the middle east is an enemy (or that everyone in the Middle East sees every one of us as the enemy). This was, I believe, in response to the antiseptic nature of our media coverage of Afghan civilian deaths. But even if you don't buy that argument, should the media as an industry be expected to take a partisan position on military actions? IE, it's not as if they are saying "YAY! Another 500 Afghans have been annihilated in Kandahar! Don't you love it when the radar goes awry!!" Why would that be more inherently absurd than using the news of those deaths to undermine the nation's solidarity? Just a question. Not even sure what I think about it.
Pffffft!

Well, I've been silently following this discussion thread and decided it was time to say something.
To Daniel Kratz -- you presented your arguments well but this caught my eye, "If you want to survive, you have to defend yourself." It is simply impossible to defend yourself when you are half-starved, uneducated, impovrished,and repressed, when your home is being bombed.
And for people who would too quickly generalize about "The Enermy" (whom ever they may be), I can tell you that, as a person who has traveled in the third world and witnessed astounding poverty, people who are in a serious state of destitution often have little, if any, say in the government, even if it was elected "by" the people. People in impovrished states often know very little about their governments and its' policies, have little if any education, and hardly any knowledge of international affairs. Whatever they are told by their government is often the only knowledge they may have. If they are told America is Satan, well than, America is Satan. If getting rid of America will be a panacea, than America needs to be dealt away with. Poverty makes people very, very desperate.
And to Brian Gerrard -- yes, you see exactly what the media wants you to see, how they want you to see it and when they want you to see it.

Well, I'm off to hold hands, pray for world peace, and sing "combayah."
And on a more serious note, there is *nothing* more devestating than having a child beg you for food -- anything -- just one piece of bread, because they are so hungry... America is a terribly fortunate country and we are lucky to live here.
Kate H.

No Kate, you are wrong. The media does not report at all on what people want to hear. Like who really gives a shit about the people in guantanamo bay in cuba, if you look at current polls nobody gives a shit. nobody gave a shit about Clinton's hummer in the white house but that shit was all over the news. you are very misled.

I didn't know congress hadn't declared. Kinda odd. YOu know why the rest of the world hates us. Because we can't keep our asses out of things. But you also know the rest of the world wants us to help. Sometimes I think we are caught in a catch 22. You know Palastine wants us to mediate the stuff over there. But you know if we do we are going to get a huge back lash from everyone over there. So do we go or don't we go. I say we let everyone over there do whatever they are going to do. If that means killing each other so be it. We are hated cause we do too much. We aren't the police of the world. I know we care but sometimes its alright to care but stay out of it. This war on the other hand is different. We were attacked so I think we have a right to defend ourselves and feel safe. Innocent people dying sucks and that should never happen. But I think in war we can't be perfect which sucks too. So it's do you let them try to control the USA or do you defend yourself. Sucks big time. It really does. I just want to be safe and the men over seas fighting I am proud of. And hopefully they make this world not just the USA but this world a bit more safer. Ok thats my ramble.

Hi Wil,

I do have to agree with you, the killing of innocent Afghan civilians does make my stomach turn. But your post does have a decidedly Evil-American-Government tone to it. Unfortunately, "collateral damage," as the military calls it, is a fact of war. It happens. I'm not justifying it or condoning it, but unless we want to send our own military suicide bombers into Al-Qaeda's cave offices, this type of "collateral damage" is most likely going to occur.

Just think of it this way: You're an Air Force officer flying over Afghanistan in your plane when you see something that looks suspiciously like an Al-Qaeda secret meeting. They match the descriptions you have of some known terrorists, and your intel says that they had direct links to the 9-11 terrorists. But then again..you can't be SURE. They could just be local civilians. What do you do? It's an easy answer in the military, but it's not an easy answer for a human being, and even thought that pilot has to follow orders, that doesn't mean he or she isn't struggling internally with the ethics of the decision. With all this talk of having utmost respect for men and women in the military, there certainly seems to be a lot MORE talk implying that they are cold, heartless bastards willing to bomb anyone and anything. Let me just say that EVERYONE in the military grapples with their decisions, from the commander-in-Chief to the Chairman of the Joint Chief to the corporal who is forced to pull the trigger in what MIGHT be self defense. These are people, and yes, the military desensitizes you, but it doesn't make you inhuman. And by the way, the US hasn't fought a formally declared war since World War II.

Want to hear something REALLY sick? Two of my professors have repeatedly suggested that the real culprit for the 9-11 attacks was none other than George W. Bush, who engineered the hijackings in order to rally the public around him and bring legitimacy to his "skeptical" presidency. That's sick.

I give a sh**.
And I never said that the media reports on "what people want to hear."

Kate H.

And whoever referred to the USA as terrorists you just make me mad. If you want to live in fear so be it. I want to live in a safe world. Hopefully you get to enjoy that safety too. *sighs* Or lets all agree that we all are idiots and suck and are bitches to each other and all deserve to die and move on? Eh? Okay? Everyone happy?

No way Kat!! I would like omg. I am speechless at that. Frankly Bin Laden and the terrorists were a problem long before Bush came into office. The USS Cole. The first WTC bombing. The Embassies.(sp?) So you can tell your professors to shove their heads up their asses cause it already sounds like thats where they are.

Let's say 3,000 civilians died in Afghanistan from our bombs. But what if we were now able to save 30,000 through vaccinations and other aid that wasn't possible when the Taliban was in power?

Brian,
You are led like a blind sheep. the US should report on other things. the US media should talk about other stuff. How can the US people get a real world objective and imformed opinion of things?? the Afgan problem was going on well before 9/11 but nobody in the US saw it coming because the media made it low priority. Why should something have to happen to us for us to pay bloody well attention to us. We are a bunch of spoiled attention getting brats. Shame on us.

Wil,
I know what you're saying. I went through a lot of emotions after 9-11. First shock...then fear...then saddnes...and finally anger. Although I mourn the losses of fellow Americans and want vengence, I do not want to fight a war that cannot be won. There will always be nations that do not agree with our beliefs and way of life. Some in this country no not agree. We can't kill them all. Who will be next?

I just wanted to say thank you to everyone who is and has been participating in this discussion.

This is not exactly a non-emotional issue, and I just wanted to commend everyone on their conduct, regardless of what opinion you hold on this subject.

I've been sitting here, hitting F5 for quite awhile, and each time there is a new comment, it causes me to think, and thinking is a good thing.

The diversity of opinions here is equalled only by the civility of the discourse.

Thank you, everyone. We honor the memories of the victims, by debating what the world will become, I think.

Oh, wait.

Never mind.

Dang. :/

What do us the people of the US want? personally? In general? What do we need??

What I responded. Refresh Wil Refresh. LOL!! We love you anyways no matter how much you annoy us. :)

I as a US citizen need a husband. No on a more serious level I think we need to know we are safe more than anything. Or at least need to know that we can be protected.

It is such bad Karma that we dish out. There never seems to be totally good in anybody nor total bad...such deep desturbing grey.

And it suddenly got quiet.

Wil, I actually posted this story on my own site when I ran across it earlier today. But my reaction to it was a lot different than yours.

Your position on this is VERY weak and narrow. While we may not like the concept of "collateral damage", it's just a fact.

We are over there in Afghanistan because the Afghan people are either unable or unwilling to solve the problem themselves. I have yet to get a straight answer on that question. I keep hearing Islam = Peace... but CNN says different. And we all remember the thousands of people dancing/cheering in the streets after Sept. 11.

In any war there will always be casulties and suffering. And there is usually a LOT more leading up to the war, which is the reason for the war.

You can cower in the corner and cry "peace" or get up and kick the crap out of the bad guys. No offense, but your attitude helps to empower the very evil we're fighting.

I'm sorry that there were innocent casulties, but who is to blame? The United States, the terrorists, or the terrorists and the lack of action on the part of the civilians?

You say, "I realize that, in war, civilian deaths are inevitable, but that doesn't mean that I have to like it, and I fear that there are people who will read this story, and it won't bother them a bit that a mother lost a son in our pursuit of the terrorists."

Duh, but should we sit around crying with the girls, and feeling sorry for ourselves? I mean come on. Be a man.

"Countless Iraqi civilians died during the Operation Desert Storm, simply because they were in the wrong place, at the wrong time"

That is complete falsehood. You paint an image of a family tending the flowers in its garden when all of a sudden, from nowhere, a bomb drops and it turns into a scene from 'Platoon'. What a bunch of crap.

These innocent victims supported the Iraqi government. They put Saddam into power, and follow him. They volunteer to place their kids into terrorist camps. They willingly execute someone caught with a Bible, practicing homosexuality, or doing anything that is against the peaceful Islam.

Our servicemen die to protect us, and these *innocent* people, and it's our fault? Don't try and back out of the statement by saying you support the defenders of this country. If you really did then you would not have dedicated so much of your front page to this peacnic crap. You could have posted one of a million other stories out there talking about what they are doing, but you chose to speak on this instead.

Wil, I think it's great that you're trying to releive suffering, but all you're doing is prolonging it.

Some of the anger that come out of people scares me but also it makes me proud to know they care so much. ROCK ON PEOPLES!!

I live in Los Angeles. I take cabs often. The day before yesterday, my cabdriver happened to be Afghani. His name was Takaa. He told me that 32 members of his family were wiped out last month by an American bomb. 32 members of his family. His two uncles, their wives, and all of their children. One bomb. How many Takaas do you think there are in Afghanistan?

I posted somewhere and I know its sorta of crappy but we are all mean and bitches and jerks and all deserve to die. So move on. And shit happens. It sucks but it happens. But BUT! At least we aren't killing because we just feel like that they should be wiped out. If you think we are then you are saddly mistaken.

"Our servicemen die to protect us, and these *innocent* people, and it's our fault? Don't try and back out of the statement by saying you support the defenders of this country. If you really did then you would not have dedicated so much of your front page to this peacnic crap. "

Andrew, that's unfair. One of the best things about having a government that at least parades around like a democracy is that of questioning its decisions without fear of being shot. There's no conflict between a person supporting those pursuing the policies of the government while questioning the wisdom of the policy. And it certainly doesn't bespeak a lack of manhood. To NOT be ambivalent on an issue like this is to oversimplify the ramifications of EVERYONE'S actions.

DaleJr.
Than why are we starting war type of threats to those other countrys?? They have not attacked us...there is only thought that they will do something to us.

A series of commentaries on Afghanistan if anyone wants to do some reading.
http://www.bangornews.com/editorialnews/columnists/whitneyazoy.html

I just wonder at what point we become the evil we're fighting against. And while I can't speak for any service men or women, our government certainly isn't over there to protect innocent people - it's been said a million times already tonight, we didn't give a shit what happened to the people in Afghanistan until Sept. 11 - we're over there for revenge and to make sure no one attacks us again, not to try and help the Afghani's who have been suffering under the Taliban's regime. As for the "innocent" people, (and I know someone said this earlier, but I don't want to wade through the old posts to credit them - just know it's not my original idea), no adult human is truly innocent. That doesn't mean that killing them to serve our own ends is justified, regardless of what they've done in the name of Islam. I'm sure there were some racists or gay bashers that died in the WTC attacks that used Christianity to justify their actions - does this mean they were any more deserving a target of the terrorists than anyone else that died that day? We're not bombing Afghanistan (or Iraq, before) because they executed Christians or gays in the name of Islam - we're doing it for our own reasons, and they don't have anything to do with Afghani civilians. In other words, we're not seeking justice for anyone but ourselves. Regardless of whether or not you support the government's stance in this "war", at least be honest about our reasons for being in it, instead of trying to make this out to be the US taking on terrorism and the Taliban to help everyone else out. As a nation, we only care about ourselves and our interests. Period.

I agree with Chris. I appreciate all that the armed forces for protecting and fighting for us. Maybe I'm selfish. My brother is a marine. I'd much rather have him home right now. I worry for his safety, but I know he doing what he thinks is right. We have to agree to disagree.

This country didn't attack us but the terrorists that did are there and they were warned. Remember we told them all you have to do is hand them over and we won't do anything hell we even delayed the date to start bombing to give them the option to turn the terrorists over to us but they refused and we acted. If they didn't want us to bomb them they should have turned the people they were harboring over. Plain and simple they didn't do as we asked and we acted.

And Iraq is just something that should have been dealt with a long time ago. I believe also he said he would do something not that we just think.

After reading all that is here, and thinking it over, I'd figure I'd put my opinion in. it's a bit long, so please bear with me.

First, I grieve deeply. For the lost way of (my) life, for those lives lost here and abroad, for a number of things. I happened to be uncomfortably close to the Trade Center when it collapsed. Secondly, I'm about as Anti-war as one could get. The rant in the URL should prove it. Frankly, I don't care if it's not formally declared. When we drop bombs on targets and cause 'collateral damage', it's war, no matter what we say it is. Vietnam was a war, dammit.

I realize that the trade centre was an intentional target. The terrorists have tried this before? Remember 1993?? That should have woken up the government then. But no one paid attention, and here we are now.

Terrorism is unlike any 'traditional' form of war that history has seen. Pardon my trip down history lane here, but I'll keep it short:

In the Renaissance, it was people on horseback, and guys wielding spiky clubs, axes, etc. in the Revolutionary times, it was a bunch of guys wearing colorful clothing lined up in a row shooting muskets at each other. The Colonists was called uncouth because we broke that mold of 'traditional' and use guerilla tactics. The Brits were stunned. How could these heathens go running around, hiding in the brush, and shoot down people?

Terrorism is war on civilians in an attempt to force the attacked country to recognize the group's sovereignty/ cause/ point/ demands. Except that the 'cause' in this case is to get the US to stop meddling in the affairs of the world. In certain ways, I agree. We Americans do a lot of stupid things in the world and are hated for a variety of reasons that other have mentioned above. But if they looked around a bit, they'd also notice that Americans are also trying to do good. Can you not fault us for at least trying?

I just want to give a thought to everyone...Because what you read. There is alot of editorials on things but you got to remember what an editorial is...It is someone elses opinion/viewpoint.

Ah, didn't know what the URl in the commetns thing-y did.

Please direct flame to this addy.

yes Afganistan should have been dealt with along time ago but my problem is the US seems to get the big brother effect....even though there is the UN. The world should help and decide what to do about dangerous countrys or people not the soul desiion of the US. BTW the US hasn't paid its UN dues in a long long time.

1) I agree with you about 9/11.
2) Stop apologizing for your beliefs.

That's all...

Chris, you're right. You can support the servicemen while being against the men giving them orders. I did not mean it that way.

Wil threw in some words of *support* to the servicemen in an attempt to not appear totally anti-war (or anti-american)... but that's exactly what his news post relveals.

His post is an emotional reaction, and completely lacks thought. His lack of 'manhood' is not in questioning the policies of our government, it's in having an emotional anti-war reaction without using your head. It's a very weak-minded attitude.

Our efforts over there are intended to accomplish 3 main things.

1) Proect the U.S. from any further casulties. Our number one responsibility is to protect our own. If a million civilians have to die to accomplish that then so be it. Family first, charity later.

2) Seek out and punish those responsible for attacking us.

3) Liberate the innocents in Afghanistan and give them their country back. If these people truly are *innocent* then they should be damned thankful to have our help. The government that they empowered is responsible for all this. We'll see what they do with our charity.

Don't forget:

5) Prop up fake economy by giving assloads of money to war profiteers.

6) Build "Dick Cheney Memorial Oil Pipeline" right through downtown Kabul.

Wil:

I am glad you realized your error. It's a common one, so don't feel bad about it. You see, the problem with nations at war is that the wrong people almost ALWAYS die. Joe Taliban or the Al Queda members in Afghanistan didn't start this war, it was Osama Bin Laden. The responsibility for any war can ultimately be placed upon the heads of just a handful of men, usually the head of totalitarian governments or any system other than freely elected leaders.

Unfortunately, the people are often the victims on both sides of war. I wish I could give the President and Bin laden the handgun of their choice, place them ten meters apart, and let them blast away. However, it doesn't work that way. So, the United States has two options. Have defenses so strong that any attack will fail, or have sufficient retaliatory capability to make such a foolish attack so God-Awfully expensive that no one would ever try it again.

Remember, people are ultimately responsible for the type of government they have, even in dictatorships. It's a harsh truth, but that is the view from the cheap seats.

Wil, please keep writing what you do. I don't agree with a lot of the political stuff (at least the foreign policy stuff) you write, but I respect you for having the guts and the innate interest in the subject to post it.

(insert Deity Here) Bless Us, Everyone

Trevor Paul Pyle

oops.

4) Further ignore domestic social issues such as education in favor of short term poll gains which are always achieved when some incompetent goofus decides to get himself out of a popularity slump by bombing some underfed conscripts in the name of Mom and Apple Pie, Inc.

Andrew,
Ok, I'll bite.

Rebuttals mostly around.
1. "Proect the U.S. from any further casulties."
To believe that we can do this is sheer naivete. At best, military action can stamp out the seeds of the current militants while sowing the seeds of the next generation. We can NEVER protect ourselves from future casualties solely on the basis of armamaments. That is, unless we bomb THE REST OF THE WORLD. In which case, our country would inevitably dissolve into warring factions.

2. Ok, making a martyr of Bin Laden will satisfy our need for vengeance, but at what price?

3. "Liberate the innocents in Afghanistan and give them their country back. If these people truly are *innocent* then they should be damned thankful to have our help. The government that they empowered is responsible for all this."
Riiiiiight. If you think for one moment that any government we put back into power over there (ie, friendly to American interests) is "giving them their country back" you're wrong. Any sane Afghan would want to obliterate us after what we've done to their country. They were bad enough off before. They're worse now. Also, WE put the Taliban into power after we helped them shove out the Russians. Now that the dog has bitten two fingers off the hand that fed it, so to speak, we're to replace it with another dog and expect the pack to be grateful?
Apologies for the crudeness of the metaphors, all, I intend no white man's burden here.

I agree with you almost entirely, Wil. Except for this:

"If you're a serviceman or woman, I don't have a problem with you, or the choice you've made to defend our country."

Isn't that similar (not EQUAL TO, I said SIMILAR) to telling Nazi soldiers that you're okay with them, because they're just following orders?

No, no, I am NOT saying that U.S. servicepeoples are on the same boat as Nazi soldiers -- not at all. But saying you don't have a problem with these peoples' choice to "defend their country," when they obviously have no problem (or not a big enough problem for them to question what they're doing) with wiping out innocents?

Anyone else see this as a little strange?

Hey Trevor,
Bin Laden isn't some Satan wannabe. Nor is Bush. Both are products of the environment and history in which they live. The Middle East has been RIFE with people who would have waged war on the U.S. if they had the means by which to do so. Bin Laden happens to be the name of the millionaire who did it and Bush happens to be the name of the Pres. who's here during it. Sure, the extent might not have been the same were the variables changed -- it could possibly have been worse. [not that I am in ANY way diminishing what happened.]
Hey here's a question. Anyone have any hypotheses on what Gore would have done?

Andrew Davis,
I think that your view of will isn't well thought out and shows your lack of emotional sensitivity towards his differance of opinion to yours. I think Wil has plenty of manhood for being able express his thoughts and feelings on something with out a cockiness common to the testosterone driven typical male.

This might piss some people off, but I'm going to say it anyway...

Wil, you asked why the government hasn't officially declared this a war. I think it's because they are afraid we won't win. I think it's like the Vietnam war...we never offically declared it a war so we have an unblemished official record. We are 100% perfect.

Get it?

I relate to what you're saying, Wil. I don't agree with the war on an ethical level either, but at the same time, I feel like it HAS to be & is the only solution. It's only rational for our government to protect our country by dealing with terrorism first hand. I'm grateful to my country, my governtment & all of our service men & women that do everything they can to keep us safe. At the same time, I wish we could all keep some perspective & realize that it's not about wiping out a certain race or country & not about revenge or even "making things right". NOTHING can make right what happened to us. But we do need to deal with terrorism against America & the rest of the world. Amercica is the only country that can cope with it, & we will.

Now about your burning question: "...of course it's a war. But why hasn't it been formally declared?" Not that I'm an expert, but it seems rather obvious to me, the reason it hasn't been *technically* declared a war is because war in the conventional sense is waged against countries, not concepts. This war, however, is one against the concept of terrorism, not the Afghan people or any country. Without a tangible, quantifiable "target" or enemy, how can war ever really be declared?

Also, you cited the way the rest of the world holds a grudge against America. I feel, personally, that this has less to do with our foreign policy as is so commonly pointed out, & more to do with the simple fact that America is the most powerful nation in the world. That contempt & attention we get from other countries is nothing more than the price we pay for our status. Afterall, the terrorists of Afghanistan are convinced that we're evil & commited to their destruction, but if not for their attack on the World Trade Center, most of us would never hear or think about their country or their people. Think about it: we never gave them a passing thought, but they focused on us -- just because we're in the spotlight.

I know war sucks, but it's neccessary to supress evil in this world.

If the US had not gotten involved in WWII against Japan and Germany. Far worse things would've had happened.

If the US and Europe had decided not to fight back against evil, Germany would have won the world.

Germany would have killed every single Jew, Gypsy, blacks, homosexuals, disabled people and everything that the Arian Nation would have considered non-arian.

Germany would have created a total white population around the world. (especially his dream of a white world with blonde hair and blue eyes).

But we did get involved and we kicked evil in the ass and we won.

Germany had the biggest army in the world, Hitler had more soliders than any nation in the world, they had more tanks, planes, and all kinds of weapons of war.
They had the best ships (including the Bismark, which took hours for it to sink to the bottom, they had the biggest cannons in the world. One shot would've blown up one single ship out of the water.)

It was a miracle that we even won given the odds that was against us.

While the terrorists blew up two of our WTC buildings and nearly 3,000 lives was lost. We were not purposely bombing innocent civilians. Like all the wars in the past, innocent lives do get killed.

The Afgans got killed by bad bombs gone astray, it's unfortunant, but it happens. This isn't the first time that innocent lives died because of bombs landing in the wrong places.

But if we don't do something, more lives will be lost to terrorists.

So sitting back and give no response to the WTC bombing will not keep the terrorists from doing it again.

When Pearl Harbor has attacked by Japan, are you saying that our response by attacking Japan and eventually dropping the Atom Bomb twice was all wrong? Should we have just said, "Ok, we're lifting the sanctions against Japan so you can get your oil! We learned our lesson!" ???

Hey Wil, here's an idea.
Listen to what people in Afghanistan actually say about the bombing instead of what your liberal media says. Listen to Karzai (The new leader of Afghanistan) talk about people who lost loved ones (which is a tragedy and unfortunate, no doubt about it) but at the same time feel the joy that freedom brings. Afghans, unlike many other people, realize the price of freedom. Many people here in America take it for granted. Afghans do not.

Do you truly have any idea what freedom means to these people? I'd like to see how you would feel after living under the Taliban, who constantly killed Afghans, beat Afghan women, limited everything they could do, etc.
I am sure there were people in Afghanistan prepared to die so that their children would have freedom.
Would you give your life so your children could be free, Wil? Think about it.

About the handing over of the terrorists- the Taliban stated that they were willing to hand over Osama to a third party nation if they were presented with evidence proving that he was complicit in the attacks. The U.S. never did so, although it presented said evidence to all its allies, who were quite vocal in stating that it fingered Osama and Al Qaeda as planning the attacks. Why didn't the U.S. just give it to them? If they had and the Taliban had still refused, they would have further justification to attack, and if the Taliban gave up Osama, then problem solved.

re: declarations of war

The goverment of the u.s. has not historically declared war upon people or groups, only on nations. I suspect *THAT* is why congress has not declared war upon anyone.

Despite the spin that the government is attempting to put on the "war," I suspect that targetting a nation would probably cause far more foreign backlash than america is currently getting, because there is no way the terrorist attacks can solidly be blamed on any one nation.

Suppose the u.s. did try to pin the attacks on, say, Poland. There's no clear evidence that Poland supported the attacks, of course. If the u.s. attacks Poland because of the terrorist attacks, then, there is good cause for every other nation in the world to wonder when america would turn on them without specific provocation.

Note that this scenario is a "WHAT IF," not an indictment of Poland. Of course, Poland *IS* a historically militarily weak country.

Maybe america will target them next.

Re: Karzai and his statements

Hm. A ruler installed essentially by american diktat supports american actions.

Shocking

About the U.S. and Europe going to war with Germany and Japan for moral reasons- For one, I don't how it can be called a moral war, since the European powers that declared war on Germany did so because of treaty obligations with Poland, and the U.S. only entered the war after being attacked by Japan. Also, it's debatable whether the U.S. would have declared war on Germany, since the United States easily matched Germany in terms of industrial output and would have been at little risk of attack. Germany declared war on the U.S. in solidarity with Japan, a quite foolish move, especially since the military alliance signed with Japan only required them to defend Japan if attacked, not attack other countries simply because Japan had. As well, Germany's armed forces, although well trained and well led, had some defiencies- France actually had more and better tanks than the Germans, they simply deployed them ineffectually. As for the largest army, the Russians quickly surpassed the Germans in terms of size, greatly exceeding German estimates, and is quite likely that Russia could have defeated Germany on its own, albeit with much more bloodshed on both sides. This isn't to insult the contribution of the U.S. during World War 2, which was very substantial and helped bring about the collapse of three fascist governments, making the world a better place, I'm simply pointing out the war wasn't originally fought for moral reasons-towards the end of the war, military leaders were aware of the significance of the trains heading towards the death camps, but didn't divert military resources in order to disrupt the transport of the Jews to their doom, since they were concerned with defeating the Nazis.

this whole posts reminds me of the jab you took at George Bush about the Choice issue (playing the abortion card)

I dont remember any other posts about all the suffering in the world, the starvation & desperate conditions that so many live in but now you are concerned about the civilians in Afghanistan?

Seems like the hot button is that you still hate George Bush.

What ever you want to say about the man, I bet he would be smart enough to make a decision to exterminate Rats if he had them in his attic and not try to negotiate with them.

And the posts thanking you for putting everything in perspective, GMAFB

Wil,

It is pretty plain that you are a liberal Democrat. And I'm okay with that. I happen to sit, on most issues, on the other side of "the fence" as it were.

I'd like to address some points brought up not only by you, but by others who have commented here.

War is the most horrible of human undertakings. It is nasty, and brutish, and cruel. It is awful in the extreme. It is also sometimes necessary.

We cannot, absolutely must not, let 9/11 go by without a military response. And, in war, there are always civilian casualties. Always. It is the worst part of war. And it is hated by those (of good conscience) whom are engaged in war.

My goodness, as I was reading your entry and the previous comments, I had so much to say on so many points. I'll not even touch on half of them. But here goes...

Civilians will die in Afghanistan, but the count of how many is not (and probably never will be) accurately known. You're getting your info from the New York Times, the most liberal and anti-President-Bush media outlet there is. We don't know that "thousands" of Afghani civilians have been killed. "Hundreds" is quite likely, simply guessing at the number, though.

The anti-American sentiment in much of the rest of the world is, to a great extent, justified. US foreign policy is dictated by what would be best for America. But it is not done for the sake of evil. Don't fall into that trap, Wil. The vast majority of "evil" is merely the result of someone or some group pursuing their own best self-interests. But that doesn't make it nice, especially if you are on the short end of the stick. But America, economically, militarily, has no equal. None that really even comes close. So, when two parties go to a table to work out a deal, it is always the party with the upper hand that ends up with the best side of the bargain. And for the last LONG while, this is ALWAYS the US.

But Wil, you (and the rest of us, myself included) have to seperate the fact from the feeling when considering the motivations and explanations of the big goings-on in the world. You have called the President "Emporer Bush", and much worse. Is this because you really, really don't like him, or because you think he is evil, or what? People call him stupid (he graduated from Harvard, not at the top of his class, but how many of you can say the same?), they call him linked to "Big Oil" (yeah, he ran an oil company, oil is big business [and needless, but that's for another discussion]). Always, always, always consider what is the *real* prime motivation of any person whose actions you are viewing. President Bush isn't evil. The war on terror (although brutish, as all war is) isn't evil.

But what the terrorists did on 9/11 *is* evil. There are rules to war, and they were *completely* disregarded.

I also read in another comment someone saying that the US should pay off some of the 3rd world's debt. This is typical liberal thinking. Rather, not thinking, but feeling. IMHO, liberals are GREAT at feeling (their hearts are usually in the right place), but not so good at rational, reasoned thinking (their conclusions are usually arrived at through faulty logic or well-intentioned but ill-conceived or unjustified assumptions). Think of it. If the US were to pay off all of a 3rd world countries' debt, NO creditor would ever loan them money again. If you have a child who is constantly in trouble, do you keep bailing him out and never force him to face the consequences of his actions? This is not how people grow. The same applies to countries, as it does to ANYONE or ANYTHING that borrows money. If they keep having their butts saved, they will never learn the consequences of their actions. Look what happened when that fool leader of some country (it's name escapes me just now) declared that that country had no debt, that none of it's debt would be paid off ever. Their economy went in the shitter, because noone wants to lend them money or do business with them again. No man, or country, is an island in the world (and I do mean world) of commerce.

My thoughts are now terribly disjointed, and I didn't say even a third of what I wanted to say in rebuttal. Suffice to say that the US ends up on the right side much more often than the wrong side; yes, the US needs to drastically re-examine it's foreign policy; and you really have to set aside your own feelings and really think logically and clearly when trying to divine the motivations of others.

Feh. This comment isn't nearly what I wanted it to be, but I shall let is stand as it.

Email me at broth@scratchingtheitch.com if anyone cares to discuss this further. My Yahoo ID is Deltus456. My website is http://www.scratchingtheitch.com if anyone cares to visit.

And remember, Wil: even though we may be on opposite sides of the political "fence", I am still okay with you having, and stating publicly, your views and opinions. It shows you have a pair, and I respect and admire that.

- Bob Roth

As a the wife of a military pilot I have to point out, that Its MY HUSBAND that could DIE for YOU-so that you can continue to complain, bitch, rant and point the finger of blame at everyone else around you. Its men and women like my husband that protect YOUR FREEDOM of everything, your rights and your ass from every enemy we have (which is a pretty large number). I go to bed every night wondering-will I see him again, will he die for his country...I know he is protecting me through service to our great nation, but what thanks does he get? Lord knows, its not for the paycheck. No, he gets radical bleeding hearts who scream and bitch about death and dying in another country-but he does his job regardless of the ungrateful spoiled brats at home that wouldn't sacrifice an hour to help out a fellow citizen stuck on the side of the road, much less sell everything they have to go help rebuild the country they feel is being treated so unjustly. My husband VOLUNTEERED for the military..he loves his job, his country, and everything that entails. If he dies, I know he'll die doing his best-though some of you would spit out mean, uninformed insults and criticisms and jugdements. But I dont see you volunteering for active duty-like my husband did-full well knowing that he could get killed at any time to protect his fellow Americans, knowing he could widow his wife. But he smiles and tells me..."honey, they just dont understand what its like to love their country and be patriotic ALL the time, not just when a national tragedy or disaster occurs." NO, you all take for granted the fact that you can go into a grocery store and have 185 types of cereal, 60 types of bread, 6 types of milk etc...you have all that because someone sacrificed, died, and fought for your freedom. Freedom you take for granted...you wake up in your bed, in your suburban land of privledge...and you bitch and moan and scream about defense spending, war, and the terrible military killing all those innocent people...people who danced on our black hawks when they got shot down, people who hate us for our "western thinking" and luxuries. Many military personnel are on food stamps because of the lack of military spending in the last decade...tell them you dont appreciate them volunteering to die for you, so that you can wake up and order your double tall soy latte everyday while they eat food bank cheese, kiss their kids goodbye before being shipped off to the dark corners of the world knowing they might die in a country other than their own. But they go..they go for you. So,if you want to complain-use some of your precious free time that would be spent complaining, and go volunteer at a veteran's hospital and tell them you appreciate them-for giving you your right to bitch about how wrong it was for them to kill somebody in a previous military conflict. Non-military people are so pompous, arrogant and self-righteous...you have no idea what we live with day in and day out knowing the things we do....and I'll tell you this, we know more than the media tells you, and usually pretty far in advance of the media getting the info and twisting the information to fit their needs, story, deadline or bias. We know about it and we live with it, we live with the fear everyday. Will you be there if my husband dies, to hold my hand and tell me that you appreciate all he did so that you could live free? Probably not. You might be on a vacation that costs more than those poor unfortunate souls in those foreign countries ever make in their LIVES. But would you send your vacation money to them for the rest your life? No, but all of you will bitch about it, and how awful we are for going after terrorism. Shame on all of you. Next time you feel the need to bitch, why dont you go down to the recruiter and sign up...go ahead-see how the other half lives.
You might also call some of the 9-11 victims families and tell them your complaints...I'm sure they would LOVE to hear about how sorry you feel for the other side. My mom said never to pick a fight, but if someone swung at me first-to swing back and to win. We're swinging...and we're going to keep swinging until we win...for the WTC, Pentagon, Pa victims, for the oppressed Afghans, and for you the radical complainers who hate us. I'm sorry your life here is so harsh and you're subjected to live in such a terrible place. It's easy to complain about things and criticize others, but its difficult to do the things that make a difference in the world..to take action. You love to quote people...well here's a quote for you...
If you would not be forgotten,
As soon as you are dead and rotten,
Either write things worthy reading,
Or do things worth the writing.

I'll let you figure out what famous American said that.
Trust me wil, those military people fighting over there, dont intend to hurt innocent people, and the thought of it tears them up inside-trust me. They have to live with it forever. None of them want the killing and bloodshed. And all of them have families of some type, and they put it into the perspective of hurting a family member..these people cry themselves to sleep, suffer from depression, guilt, anguish,...and it hurts ten times worse when some civilian spits on them with insulting criticism and judgement. But they love their country and will do what's necessary to defend it...they do their JOB. My heart hurts for you...you couldnt possibly understand what its like to be us, so dont judge those of us who choose the military to be in service to and support of. I feel safer knowing my husband is in the air protecting our skies from the evil of
9-11. Next time I talk to him, and God knows when that will be..I'll tell him how supportive the public is of his efforts.

It takes a big man to admit when he's wrong. But your heart and sentiment were in the right place. Nolan and Ryan have a great stepdad!

Hmmm, some interesting comments but a lot of people seem to overlook the biggest supporter of terrorist in the world and that's our own meddling US Gov't. The CIA has a word for this and that word is "blowback". When the assets you trained or funded run loose and come back at you. This military action will solve nothing, and we aren't getting accurate news or information anyway.

If the "west" were really serious about stopping terrorism they'd have sent over scholars and educators but they'll never do that.

Anyway it's my 2 cents that the Taliban or whoever was 'allowed' to complete this attack on 9/11. If the worst team in the NFL with the worst offense in the NFL suddenly showed up at the Superbowl and laid the smackdown on the best defense and won by 50 you'd cry fix wouldn't you? Yeah, you would.

Kman

- in my quest to try an express myself i couldn't have said it better then how "indigosoul"just did- you go girl! And I totally agree that wil, in his wisdom to express himself did do just that express himself and he's kind enough to let us speak our minds here- your kids are lucky to have a cool (step)dad like you.

Wil, and many of the others who posted comments,

It is a fine line we tread. On the one side, none of us want to be involved in killing or in actions that might involve or defend killing another human being. Please note that this includes most servicemembers. (My husband included.)

On the other side, we have been terribly hurt by actions against us. There are very few people in the US who hasn't been affected in one way or another by the events.

What choice do we honestly have, right at the moment? We were terribly angry and sad on 9-11. And we are terribly angry and sad, still. Some for different reasons than others. Still, what choice do we honestly have? Can you belay our President's order to attack? Can you call back the fighters?

As much as we may hate to do so, we have to put our trust in our leadership. They *DO* have our best interest at heart, inasmuch as they understand it. They *WANT* to do the best job they can. They *HAVE* to keep us safe.

You may not like the current administration. Sometimes I don't either. But they're doing their best, during a horrible time, with an awful situation on their hands. I wouldn't want to do that job, and I suspect there are few that would.

Wil, I don't know if you are going to read this, and I really enjoy your website, but I have to say the following:

You really didn't think once the troops started going in to Afghanastan that people--maybe more people than died in the WTC attacks were going to die? It happens all the time in war and has thus far been unavoidable. Once the shooting starts attrocities are committed on both sides, even if one (usually the loser) is regarded as evil.

Think of the One Noble War of this century--WWII, even there the allied troops committed atrocities against the innocent, similar to what was reported the have happened in Vietnam--rapes, murders, tortures--these things done by people who may have been our relatives--if we haven't been there we can't judge.

Look at what the special forces of Canada did, just a few years after they were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. An entire unit was disbanded in Somalia for acts of "indiscretion"; of course they were reinstated again shortly afterward.

That's why the decision to send out the troops has to be carefully weighed on the part of the President. The consequences cannot be helped and for those of us who are not there, how can we judge what goes on?

I actually do wrestle with this question on a fairly regular basis; especially since S11. What is right and what is wrong. In fact, the Western world is ultimately responsible for the unrest, poverty, and oppression that most of these middle eastern countries face today. We have supported the rich because they have the oil; we have supported those that were against the Communists even though they were Warlords; we have called the current enemy friend in the past...

And the people that attacked the US in September did consider the innocent that died "collateral damage" from their point of view. That's what the innocent were; they did not have the capability of simply attacking targets; they did it by any means necessary--that is what terrorists believe.

And we were terrorists once as well. We did it to the Native American, we did it to the African-American, the rebels did it to the British during the Revolutionary War; unfortunately no Nation or People is innocent of this type of crime.

Funnily, enough the TNG episode from season 3, "The High Ground" handled this as well as any fiction ever has--the philosophy of the terrorist. Of course, DS9 did it too; the character of Kira was a terrorist and had killed innocent people.

Yes, it is a horrible atrocity that people were murdered in the US. The sad part is that many people around the world live with such crimes of terrorism every day; and of those people who suffer, many do blame the US and the Western World for crimes that have been committed decades and maybe centuries ago. Because it happened here in the US, we view as something unique and incredibly horrifying.

The people where I live in Colombia say "my god, that many people? Horrific." not "My god, a bomb." as they live with such incidents on a smaller scale. Nearly every place I've worked in Latin American, it is difficult to meet someone who has NOT had a relative die by some kind of violence.

The people of the US and Canada, my country, have really only learned in the big scheme of things that we are not immune to what the rest of the world suffers. This in no way to make light of the September 11 disaster.

There is much grey between right and wrong and we must live with the decisions we make.

SINCERELY,

THE SCRIBE

I came to this party really late. There isn't much more I can add that hasn't already been said so far. But I do know this-we've had an attack on our soil and to do nothing invites others to continue assaulting our lives, our families. To do something puts us at risk of inflicting on others the very things we want to avoid.

But think about how difficult it is to gather the correct information to deploy these missions correctly. We're talking about a region where some people go by one name and there is no organized catalog, no wonderful database to figure out who is who and what is what. It's amazing that any objectives have been achieved.

As I was writing this, a few more posts came up, and I'll end this by echoing Whisper's comments. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be doing that job. And words, or even actions can't express enough the thanks these people deserve for doing it.

To Chris:

I feel an discussion that requires more room than this place coming on.

Andrew,
Ok, I'll bite.
Rebuttals mostly around.
1. "Proect the U.S. from any further casulties."
To believe that we can do this is sheer naivete. At best, military action can stamp out the seeds of the current militants while sowing the seeds of the next generation. We can NEVER protect ourselves from future casualties solely on the basis of armamaments. That is, unless we bomb THE REST OF THE WORLD. In which case, our country would inevitably dissolve into warring factions.

-----Reply-----
Well damn, we better just throw in the towel and submit. Mr. President, hand over the football to Osama, he's in charge now.

Why is it naive to have the goal of protecting ourselves? That is stupid. I think it is naive to think that we could prevent any future attacks, of course, but that's not what I said. It is our responsibility to protect ourselves, and do what we can to make sure our children don't have to deal with these problems. The problem is here now and we should clean it up.

I agree that the way we're going about solving the problem isn't the best way to do it, but there is no solution that doesn't involve military action. You're right, another generation of terrorists might be grown, and that's if it's done the wrong way. Are you suggesting that we nuke everybody in the country? Based on what I understand of the situation over there that would be wrong... which is why were going after JUST the Taliban. Sitting over here on our hands certainly isn't the solution.

I bet if I punched you in the face you'd punch me back. As you started to I'd say "No No, let's talk about this". Then after you agree to talk I'd hit you again. Eventually you'd have to make the decision to either get your ass kicked or kick mine.
-------------------

2. Ok, making a martyr of Bin Laden will satisfy our need for vengeance, but at what price?

-----Reply-----
A martyr? But I thought Islam was peaceful and the people in Afghanistan were *innocent* and simply repressed by the evil Taliban?

If that's truly the case then they should hate Bin Laden, and should love us for helping to get rid of him. Not only for getting rid of him but also for providing them with VAST amounts of aid in the form of food, money, clothes, etc. What do they have to complain about?
-------------------

3. "Liberate the innocents in Afghanistan and give them their country back. If these people truly are *innocent* then they should be damned thankful to have our help. The government that they empowered is responsible for all this."
Riiiiiight. If you think for one moment that any government we put back into power over there (ie, friendly to American interests) is "giving them their country back" you're wrong. Any sane Afghan would want to obliterate us after what we've done to their country. They were bad enough off before. They're worse now. Also, WE put the Taliban into power after we helped them shove out the Russians. Now that the dog has bitten two fingers off the hand that fed it, so to speak, we're to replace it with another dog and expect the pack to be grateful?
Apologies for the crudeness of the metaphors, all, I intend no white man's burden here.

-----Reply-----
Any sane Afghan? Watch it Chris, your feathers are showing.

Explain to me what it is that we've done that would make them want to obliterate us? If that truly is the case then as sad as it is genocide would be the only solution to the problem. That means it's not a war against the Taliban and terror, it should be a declaration of war again Afghanistan. But that's not the case. If it were then there wouldn't be a Northern Alliance. Apparently you don't understand how things are over there. The NA soldiers greatly outnumber the US/British soldiers. We are aiding them.

The U.S. putting the Taliban into power? Really, how did we do that? We didn't.

You are not much of a history buff. Here's a general outline.

Since 1978 Afghanistan has been involved in a Civil War. From 1979 to 1989 the Soviets were involved. Around the same time in 1979 you also had the Iranian Revolution. In '78 a communist political party called The People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA), which had influence within the military, overthrew and executed the country's first president, who actually himself came into power through a coup that toppled Afghans long-time monarchy. This new government began to impliment communist-style policies on a nation with a islamic religious culture and history of resistance to any type of strong government control. Resistance began. The PDPA, from the beginning, recieved support from the Soviet Union in the form of military equipment and soviet advisors. The PDPA itself was actually divided into two rival parties who fought against each other for control of the government while simultaneously fighting the Islamic rebels. Talk about a mess.

Islamic guerrillas in the mountainous harassed the Afghan army to the point where the new communist government turned to the Soviets for increasingly large amounts of aid. The Soviets decided to occupy Afghanistan in 1979 to maintain communist power, but were unsatisfied with the current leader. They invaded on the 24th of Christmas in '79, during the night, and the current leader (Hafizullah Amin) was their first target. He was murdered and the Soviets put another leader, their personal puppet, into power. The new government, with the aid of about 110,000 Soviet troops, increased the resistance against the Islamic rebels. The Soviet invasion also brought the conflict into the realm of Cold War politics, as the United States, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and China, among others, funneled arms and other supplies to the Afghan Mujahadeen (holy warriors) who resisted the Soviets. Among our support included shoulder mounted surface-to-air missles. This weapon allowed them to take out Soviet helicopters, and ultimately allowed them to defeat the Soviets.

The Soviet invasion, coupled with the revolution in neighboring Iran, also provoked a large response from the Islamic world to resist the Communists. The Islamic Republic of Iran, along with many other Muslim nations and groups, gave aid and sent volunteers to aid the Mujahadeen. Among these Islamic volunteer fighters was a Saudi millionaire named Osama bin Laden. bin Laden and the other Arab volunteers came to be known as "Afghan Arabs," and they would later play significant roles in Islamic guerrilla wars in Algeria, Egypt, Bosnia, Tajikistan, Chechnya and in attacks on American and other Western targets.

By 1988, the dragging war and internal changes in Soviet politics prompted Moscow to agree to the 1988 Geneva Accords, which led to the withdrawal of the Soviet army in February of 1989. By this time, nearly five million Afghans had fled to Iran or Pakistan and lived as refugees. The war in Afghanistan was over for the Russians, but not for the Afghans, who continued their civil war.

The rebels then continued to fight in their own little groups until Kabul fell in 1992, and with it fell the PDPA. All the little rebel groups then fought against each other over who would rule Afghanistan. While the different rebel factions were united in their goal of ousting the Soviets and the Communist Kabul regime, they were quite different from one another. Groups represented distinct geographic regions of the country, while others represented ethnic or religious groups. The four main ethnic groups are the Pashtuns, from the south and west, and the Tajiks and Uzbeks who dominate in the north and east. Also, the Hazari minority accounts for most of the country's Shiite Muslims. Pashtuns, Uzbeks and Tajiks are mostly Sunni Muslims. The Taliban began in the Pashtun area of Kandahar, while the forces of Rabanni and Massoud are primarily Tajik. Dostum is from the Uzbek region around the city of Mazar-i Sharif.

Several rebel groups formed a governing coalition, called the Islamic Council of Mujahadeen and elected elected Rabanni as the Interim President of Afghanistan for a term of one year, beginning in 1992. He held onto the office until the Taliban seized Kabul in 1996. This council excluded the parties of the Islamic religious minority known as the Shiites, as well as the armed group called Hizb-i Islami, which was led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. During the Soviet war, the Hizb-i Islami was one of the factions supported by neighboring Pakistan and also received significant weaponry from the United States. Hekmatyar's guerrilla career began even before the PDPA coup; his rebel group carried out attacks on the regime of President Daoud as well. Hekmatyar did not accept his exclusion from the new government and sporadically bombarded Kabul with artillery for nearly three years. January, 1994 found Hekmatyar forming an alliance with General Abdur Rashid Dostum in an attempt to overthrow President Burhanuddin Rabbani (who led the Jamiat-e Islami-e faction in the Soviet war) and his defense minister, Ahmad Shah Massoud.

Dostum began his career as a "warlord" in command of the ethnic Uzbek Junbish militia in northern Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation. He joined forces with Najibullah in 1985. By 1992, he had moved back to the Mujahadeen. In the fighting that followed, nearly 25,000 civilians died in Kabul. One-third of the city was destroyed. Hekmatyar's forces were forced out of the Kabul area in 1995. While Hekmatyar was attacking from outside the city, other factions also battled each other. Two groups, the Hizb-i Wahdat and another Mujahadeen faction, the Ittihad-i Islami, engaged in urban warfare in Kabul which led to thousands of deaths and disappearances. By 1994-1995, the various armies and militias of the former Mujahadeen fought each other throughout the country and ruled their areas of control as if they were warlords. In effect, Afghanistan had no central government to speak of.

In this realm of chaos, some former Mujahadeen found a leader in Mullah Mohammed Omar. A Mullah is an Islamic religious leader. A former Mujahadeen fighter who returned to his home village after the fall of the PDPA regime, this member of the Pashtun ethnic group led a new armed group called the Taliban. The word Taliban means "student," and many of the original recruits to Omar's movement were Islamic religious students. Other former Mujahadeen leaders of Pashtun background joined with the Taliban as this new group sought to impose law and order on the country. The particular law they sought to impose was an extreme version of Islamic law. Under Taliban-imposed law, women are not allowed to work outside the home or attend school. Men are expected to grow beards and attend religious services regularly. Television is banned, and religious minorities such as the Hindus, are required to wear some sort of identifying clothing. Also, in 2001, the Taliban ordered the destruction of all non-Islamic idols and statues in areas under their control. They also attracted the support of Osama bin Laden and his organization.

In 1994, the Taliban attacked and defeated local warlords and began to gather a reputation for order and military success. Pakistan soon began supporting them, partially as a means of establishing a stable, friendly government in Kabul. The continual fighting between the former Mujahadeen armies caused waves of refugees to flood Pakistan's border regions and interfered with Pakistani trade in the region. In late 1994, the Taliban took control of Kandahar, acquiring a large supply of modern weapons, including fighter aircraft, tanks and helicopters. In January of 1995, the Taliban approached Kabul, putting Hekmatyar's forces in a vise between themselves and Massoud's army in Kabul.

From that point onward, until they seized Kabul in September, 1996, the Taliban fought against several other militias and warlords, eventually defeating them all. This is the current phase of the ongoing civil war. Massoud and Rabanni fled to the north with their forces to continue their war against the Taliban.

In 1998, following the terrorist bombings of American embassies in Africa, the United States launched a cruise missile attack on training camps belonging to bin Laden's Al-Qaida organization in Afghanistan. These were the Monica Missiles launched by Clinton...

Through the Autumn of 2001, the Taliban continued to pressure the Northern Alliance, often with the aid of Osama bin Laden and his Arab forces. On September 9, 2001, the Northern Alliance leader Ahmad Shah Massoud was mortally wounded in an assassination attempt carried out by two Arab men posing as journalists. This attack is believed to be the work of bin Laden's organization as a possible prelude to the airline hijackings and terrorism in the United States on September 11. The Northern Alliance responded to Massoud's killing with an aerial attack on Kabul the night of September 11.

On October 7, 2001 with the beginning of punishing aerial bombardments, missile attacks and special forces commando missions against the Taliban and bin Laden's forces by the United States and the United Kingdom (the Allies). An informal alliance between the Northern Alliance and the Allies developed, with coordination between Allied air attacks and ground attacks by the Northern Alliance. These attacks led to the fall of Kabul on Nov. 13, 2001, as the Taliban retreated from most of northern Afghanistan. By November 25, 2001, the last Taliban/Al-Qaida stronghold in the north, Konduz, had fallen to the Northern Alliance. American and British special forces, numbering only in the HUNDREDS, are on the ground in Afghanistan to liaison with the Northern Alliance as well as to conduct raids, ambushes and reconnaissance in order to destroy the Taliban and Al-Qaida forces.

Afghanistan was getting its ass kicked by Russia until we stepped in and gave them scud missiles. Had we not done that they'd be speaking Russian and we'd have a whole different problem on our hands. The Soviets killed millions of Afghans. We helping them. They continue to fight amongst themselves and we mind our own business until they hit us. Now we've picked a side, and are AIDING the Northern Alliance in defeating the Taliban.

Explain to me why they should want to *obliterate* us for this?
-------------------

"The media does not report at all on what people want to hear."

Of course we don't. That would mean telling the truth, no matter how hard it was. And people don't want to hear that, despite the cries for honesty. They want sensational headlines. Would you buy a paper if the cover story talked about the 4th grade school play (assuming you're not the parent of a 4th grader in that play)? I know I wouldn't, it's not of any interest to me. I work for a TV news station, and we report on whatever will get us ratings, which creates ad $$, which in turn pays my bills. It's a fact of business, not ethics, that we cover the "big" stories.

And as for truth: If it were proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that Osama Bin Laden was NOT responsible for 9/11, and there was no real evidence to prove that anyone else was . . .would you really want to know? Or would you rather keep him as the guilty party because we've already made his face the "face of evil" for the free world? Could you honestly sit by and wait for the powers that be to track down the real culprit?

The reason I ask this - Bin Laden was named the primary suspect before the towers even collapsed. No evidence gathered, nothing examined, no questions asked...no basis for such an accusation. Most people overlook that fact.

Just food for thought.

ArtisticSpirit, lol (sorry), do please explain why my view isn't well thought out. Lack of emotional sesitivity? Testosterone driven typical male?

Hmm.

Neither you or Wil understand why we are over there. Go watch the History Channel for about a month and come back to me.

wow... I don't know if anyone will see this since it's posted so late. but here goes...

I'm divided. There are so many ways to look at it, we were wrong in the first place; they are just ingrates; our government could have done more; our government should have done less.... ad nauseam.
It just goes on.

So screw it. what's done is done. no easy way to clean up the mess. NOT killing civillians at all is just impossible. The US HELPED make the mess and should accept some of the blame. but what's done is done. All we can do is try to stop them before they stop us. Yeah, we've come down to an us OR them proposition... I vote for us. I'm by no means saying we should just do whatever the fuck we please, but rather we do what we have to do to reduce the immediate threat. Only after the threat has been diminished can we go about trying to clean up the mess providing, of course, that our government changes it's foreign policies.
(I don't see that happening with the current administration, Geronimo George is just too bent on takin on them "tinhorn terrorists" and not on fixing what we helped break in the first place)

Collateral damge... yeah it is pretty sad, but I have YET to hear of a truly viable alternative.

I hope that made some sense. I think i burned a fuse trying to put it into words.

(arrgggh the lameness consumes me!)

Nikkalia, Bin Laden was not named the primary suspect without any evidence. Bin Laden had attacked us before, made threats to do similar things, etc... that is called evidence. Further investigation through intelligence means shows him to without a doubt be the guy.

There is no possibility of his being innocent.

Don't forget to go back to at least the first couple of decades of this century when the Western World interfered with these countries in the first place, thus bringing us to where we are today.

If a country came into Canada and said, now we'll stop your bickering and here's how we'll do it, I'd be upset a hundred years later; how about if I had just walked into the US during the Civil war and imposed my will on what should happen to the future of the country. These types of wounds take a long time to heal and can lead to extremist views.

Wil,
I have some differing views than you do regarding this, but.................
there is no way to battle this war without the deaths of the innocent. Think of Vietman.
I close my eyes sometimes and imagine that those Americans fighting for out lifestyle sometimes find it hard to distinguish between the Afgahn and the Al Queda member.

BTW, the sonic wave thingies are but I did have a friend of mine who said it was all just balleyhoo.

Crickey, people. There is an awful lot of emotion tied up in this issue. I suppose that makes sense.

This whole issue is fucked. Both sides have legitimate points (although both also have some misconceptions, too), and I think that's worth mentioning.

True, few people really really really wanted to hear the endless debates regarding President Clinton's various affairs. I'd be one of them. Then again, people believe what they're told, for the most part. Someone tells me that my professor smoked pot as a youngster, ten to one I'll believe him. Doesn't make it true.

What I'm trying to say, the general rule stands: we believe what we are told.

Collateral damage bites. I find this whole bombing-nonmilitary-targets in Afghanistan to be really nasty. Yes, we are going after an orginization that is all for the continued death of US civilians. That doesn't make it any better.

Retaliation is certainly an option in light of 9/11. Doesn't make the destruction and death any more justified. Death is never easy, and we're dishing it out as though there was a shortage elsewhere.

If I hear one more goddamned "peacenik" slur... seriously, people, take that kind of thing elsewhere. This situation is not WWII, or Vietnam. It is its own situation.

To all of you with loved ones in the Armed Forces - may nothing harmful happen to them.

One thing that has always confused me - we have the largest peacetime army in the world. I can't imagine that it's for circumstances such as this; if it is, well, why don't we just declare martial law, just in case we need it?

Sorry, that's something that's been bugging me for a while, and I really don't require an answer.

That wasn't as eloquent a post as I normally write. I somehow got sick. I need to go hide in a nice warm corner now, and sleep.

"Funny, I don't feel welcome."
- Guybrush Threepwood

I could care less about their civilians. Mainly because they are anything but civil. They celebrated our distruction. We warned them, we told them 10 years ago to leave us alone, to take their twisted cultist doctrine and pray all they want, but to leave us the hell alone. Wil, how did they respond? First, they bombed the trade center once. Reasoning? We side with Israel and the "evil" jews. But Clinton shrugs, gets a blow job and lets it go. Then they bomb some embassies, Reasoning? Were still helping the jews, and were not helping them. THEN they bomb our ships, reasoning? They never said this time though i'm sure it had something to do with us, jews and their cult. And finally we get a president in office who actually fights back, and then, they make the fatal error, of outright challengening the soveriegn power of the United States with a calculated and direct attack. They kill our civilians in the thousands. And only now do we fight back. We gave them ample time and warning to reform themselves and tyhier government and they failed, so we are doing it for them. Only now that we are doing what needs to be done, we get bleeding hearts asking "Shouldn't the prisoners be prtected and treated well?" or "Shouldn't we do better to not hurt their civilian population?". Well shouldn't they have not attacked us in the first place and it wouldn't they wouldn't have had to die? Screw them, screw those prisoners and most of all screw their sand pit and their false god. They deserve what they are getting, in fact i'm still of the opinion they deserve worse, we should have nuked the country off the map when we had the chance. You may think diplomacy and talk solves alot and peace is all good Wil, But the truth is, WAR solves problems, it does it quickly, efficently and usually with a very loud boom. Its dirty, loud and bloody. But it does solve the problem. But then again, Maybe yer right Wil, maybe we should talk, and while were in that little room talking they can blow all of our country and everything else straight to hell, then we can just throw a rag on our hand start chanting moobla-oobla and all will be well. What do ya think? My plan or Wil's?

The problem is unfortunately, history has proven that you can't fight terrorism; and the people of afghanastan are not terrorists for the most part. The want the US to help them correct the injustices done to them during the Cold War.

If the US wants to fight the bad guys and help the good guys they better stay in that country for the long haul; and really help the people of a country which they contributed to condemning to poverty.

And yes, this is an emotional issue for me--we were all directly affected somehow by the bombing.

re: viable alternative

The Special Forces exist for a reason, as do the marines. For that matter, so does the UN and NATO, who have both publicly denounced terrorism.

So tell me again why we had to drop lots and lots of bombs (over 10,000 based on the article Mr. Wheaton (SIR!) linked to) rather than taking the route that would better target the terrorists and inflict less damage upon Afghanistan and its people?

Lots of folks have made good points, both pro and con.

However, I'm bothered by the fact that much of the arguments presented (including yours, Wil.. sorry. I love ya tho, really) are largely philosophical/theoretical ones and don't directly address the unique situation we find ourselves in. It's psychologically uncomfortable, but sometimes one simply has to engage in situational ethics, and decide on the lesser of two (or more) evils. Moral absolutism almost never applies to the real world. Also, rather than split this into a pacifist-aggressivist debate, or a liberal-conservative one, it's important that we look at each individual issue we face here (and there are many) and put our general political views and ideaologies aside to look at it as objectively as possible.

That said, there's also another problem common to debates such as this, which is:

What would *you* do?

It's easy to criticize the actions of others, especially when they have unpleasant outcomes, and are done by people it's so easy to hate in the first place (Hey- President Pubes? Got Domestic Policy yet?) but far harder to decide exactly what you'd do if it were up to you.

So, Wil, if you were Queen for a day, what changes would you make? And, just because I'm curious, feel free to meta that question out to cover more than the war issue, too. Be sure to back your ideas up with evidence that they'd work, too (and I know you will. You're a bright lad :) )

Looking forward to seeing that entry.

Andrew Davis,
Go ahead...play around being a war monger. I don't need the history channel because I am not quickly eager to go forward to the past way of thinking like you and Presidant Bushy.

I carefully read indigosoul's post again, then reread it a bit later and I'm astonished. When has our own government ever thanked it's soldiers? Seems to me throughout history (and I am generalizing here), after each and every scrap the US gets into, it doesn't own up to whatever might've happened to it's own participants in said conflict after they come home. Half the time that's when the suffering starts. It goes without saying it takes a helluva lot of courage to go into battle and fight for your beliefs and our freedom in general. If only your leaders beliefs were as noble as your own(soldier). Cause if you really felt so strongly you'd risk your own life, not someone elses, I don't care if you're Pres or not.
I don't think anyone was attacking a US Soldiers motivation or his duty. Then indigo goes on a tirade against US civilians because she thinks they aren't thanking him enough. He's a foot soldier, a tool, he is being used and he will never be thanked enough by anyone for it. Ever. Had the government that sent him there not interfered in the first place, then we wouldn't, and he wouldn't, be in this mess now. Hey, let me go back even farther...had the Soviet Gov't not sent it's young men into Afghanistan, then our gov't wouldn't have sent it's young and brainwashed to counter anything...and he wouldn't be in this mess.

Let's go back to the root of this and that is when Old Men in leadership positions brainwash there people, get em all riled up and send them off to fight. Then the receiving country counters with much of the same and there's no end to it. Empires have risen and fallen with this crap and the US is an infant compared to most that have existed. We continue on this course of tit for tat and we are going down. All the bluster and technology in the world won't save us because empires don't always fall from outside forces, they mostly fall from within. Another 50 to 100 years and you're gonna wish your grandkids lived in Norway.

Anyway, if you made it through that ramble great, if not....tough cookies, it's late and I'm tired.

I'm quite certain the cosmos is rethinking it's decision to wipe out dinasours and bring in humans. Live and learn.

Kman

Mad-Rid -

I'd take my next-door neighbor's cat's plan on how to implement world peace over yours. At least the cat's an equal-opportunist in his hatred of people, and isn't a racist like you.

Why is it that reading some right-wing gross generalizations about the enemy, I can't help but hear the same rhetoric and hate coming from the mouths of the terrorists? (I've commented on this phenomenon before in the lost September posts, I'm sure.)

Shining example:
"They kill our civilians in the thousands. And only now do we fight back. We gave them ample time and warning to reform themselves and tyhier [sic] government and they failed, so we are doing it for them. Only now that we are doing what needs to be done..."

That could have been a direct quote from one of bin Laden's terrorists, explaining why they wanted to kill American civilians for America's actions against their people.

While some "right-wing" posts were thought-provoking and well reasoned (thank you for making me think, Bob Roth), the majority of them tend to be full of anger, hate and name-calling. They too often come across as ignorant and willfully blind no matter how many history lessons are cut-and-pasted into them.

I am all for debate and listening to opposing points of view. Unfortunately, the opposing point of view here too often gets lost in idiocy and anger at "bleeding heart liberals". For a group of people that frequently complain about the emotionality of liberals, you sure inject a ton of emotion (anger, hate) into your arguments.

I hope this isn't interpreted as a flame or attack against personalities instead of ideas. If it is, I apologize. Just think of it as a plea for more Bob Roth's and less Andrews/Mad-Rid's. I want to hear more right-wing arguments and ideas, I just want less of the scary people. :-)

Now where did I put that flame-retardant suit...

Oh, and Mad-Rid?

That little bit I just wrote probably went over your head. I will attempt to explain.

This country you so vehemently support (that is to say, the USA) was founded on principles of equality and freedom. Freedom of choice, speech, religion, you get the idea.

When someone starts bitching about "towel-heads" and "false gods", it gets me to thinking.

1. This person is not espousing basic American ideals.

2. This person really needs to read up on things like "The Holocaust", "Religious Persecution", and "How Not to be a Fuckhead - For Dummies".

I'm going to assume you're a Christian. You're certainly not a Jew or a Muslim, and neither is it likely you're a Buddhist or pretty much any other religion I can think of off the top of my head.

(This is not to say Christians are the only ones who speak like this. Every religion has had someone who has said this - Law of Averages, if nothing else.)

Now, there's this saying in the Bible; well, two, actually. I'd like to point them out.

"Eye for an eye"

"Love thy neighbor"

What can we learn from this, kids? People are seriously messed up. Here are two lines, both used by one religion, that are both bandied about like nobody's business.

Let's not forget that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are tied together whether they like it or not; it's called a common origin, kids, and if you don't believe me, you might want to check your facts, because this is nothing new.

I can handle emotional reasons for retaliation.

I can handle practical reasons for retaliation.

I can even handle political reasons for retaliation.

I REFUSE to handle religious and racial biases for retaliation.

And neither should anyone else.

Thank you.

I wasn't speaking out of hate. Flamer KJB. I was speaking out of fact. Their basis for attacking us is religion based! I didn't kill a thousand people, because i believe my god thinks that the jews and their allies need to die. They did. Furthermore, I am neither right wing, nor republican. I am a moderate and a democrat. I didn't outright shoot down anyones appraisal of a situation based on my own personal beliefs, did I? No, I merely stated my opinion in this FORUM. You Flamer-KJB, are the one who obviously doesn't share in the idea of basic freedoms, for two reasons: You stand in defense of those who want nothing more than to take the freedom of LIVING away from you and secondly, Because you say that because my idea isn't popular it is wrong! I hold NO prehudice against the Islamic religion, though i do believe its based on a cultic climate, Whereas there are severe physical and emotional reprecussions from disobeying tradional doctrine of the church, inflicted by the church. I am not a racist, its very difficult for me to speak in any kind manner about people who have terrorized MY people as a jew, and as an american for centuries. So forgive me for being a bit spiteful towards them, As i see them through a minds eye of pain and discord caused by the many years they have plagued my Iraelite brethren. As for my plan for wold peace i wasn't aware i laid one out, i merely stated that i thought (and still do) that a far more logical way of ending this conflict would be with a campaign of either thermite plasma carpet bombing of the countryiside, or a nuclear assault. I espoused my disagreement with Mr. Wheaton for his viewpoint that the Afghani's (Taliban, Al-Qaeda etc etc) civilian population are innocent in this war. I strongly believe that had they the conviction and proposed love for the united states as many are arguing that they would have ousted a government that persecutes them, or at the very least not allied themselves with a group that has in the past and still today continues to commit acts of terrorism against the united states, of which they are supposed to care. I firmly believe they are no more innocent than the ones who flew the planes directly into the the towers as they (the government at leats, if not the people) had for knowledge of the events that would and did occur and did absolutely NOTHING to stop it, and in fact celebrated at first when the attack was commited. I will not stick up for nor defend, nor proclaim innocence or ignorance for the same group of people that did in documented fact celebrate and encourage the terrorist actions brought forth against our country. If you do it is your opinion and belief to do so and i respect that, But because i don't share that belief of tolerance and good-hearted idealism towards them, that is not an excuse to flame me. Thank you!

concepts that involve ambiguity, like this one, are always going to cause trouble. dealing with complex issues with intelligence requires us to be able to hold two seemingly opposite ideas in our heads and realise that they need not cancel one another out, since two or more conflicting positions can be utterly 'true' at the same time; doing so may provide an insight into other solutions to the problem. polarity is comfortable, but not the most useful approach, and certainly doesn't allow access to other people's experiences of 'truth.'

can it be bad to kill innocent american civilians, and also bad to kill innocent Afghani civilians? are these two moral judgements necessarily in competition?

can someone receive the benefits of one's country's military and at the same time criticise the manner in which one is defended?

(insert jack nicholson tirade here)

is it possible to be patriotic, yet not demand that your countrymen feel the same way?

is it possible to separate the thoughts and feelings one has for a loved one serving a dangerous task in the military from the thoughts and feelings one has regarding politics, and the military campaign in general?

and ultimately...

can one feel passionately about an issue, with absolute certainty that one is right, and at the same time acknowledge that one's experience is not the only version of events?

discuss.

Hmmmm...this debate could go on forever. Just one point I think worth mentioning (especially to Mad Rid).
Here in Britain - through the 70's, 80's and some of the 90's we were DAILY terrorised by a group from Ireland called the IRA. Thousands of innocent civilians died during these attacks, and the nation lived in fear for decades.
Should we have gone a bombed the F%$& out of Ireland ? Pres Bush says that they are enemies of any nation who harbours or funds terrorism. Why aren't the US bombing Ireland ? Or any other of the multitude of countries who harbour groups that plan terrorist attacks every day.
Perhaps it is because most of the funding for the IRA came from....was it Bin Laden....no, how about the PLO...no.... hey guess what, it was the good old USA. So how many of you would complain if we (Britain) starting bombing your military installations... or perhaps we should dispense with the formalities, and just nuke you ! Wouldn't be happy ? Retaliate ? Argue that you had no involvement with the funding of the IRA ?
Well just read US citizen as Afghan citizen, and the IRA as Al Quaeda, get my point. The only difference - Afghanistan is powerless to retaliate.
Shame on your government for being so hypocritical. ALL of us have blood on our hands in one way or another. Bush should take his head out of his arse, and stop spouting about how wonderful and hard done by the US is.
I know you don't want to hear this, and that contributors to this commentpage will probably flame me horribly... but this was going to happen sooner or later, it could have been someone from Vietnam, or maybe El Salvador. Wake up and smell the coffee America. The rest of the world has suffered terrorism for decades. We don't try and start WW3 in response.

My questions: Why did 9/11 take us by total surprise? Why didn't Bush and the CIA know in advance and try to stop it? How did that John Walker Lindh kid manage to meet Bin laden when the CIA were clueless? How come we didn't give a shit about terrorism until 9/11? How come we have to drop so many bombs instead of hunting down the enemy? Why do enough people hate us to want to kill us.

Just raining bombs on a nation not isn't the answer and it cost too much. Will we ever be safe? Other than free or kill Afgahs, that may or may want me dead, as well as show the world what happends to nations that hold those nasty terrorists, has America won anything? Where's Bin Laden? Are we any safer?

Our government should be able to hunt down its enemies, without killing too many others, and I believe that will possible once Bush and the rest of our government figures how 9/11 occur in the first place.

If there's going to be all these men and women with kids risking their lives so I watch "Star Trek" comfortably, then I should be supporting them. That means doing anything I can to make sure their children live in a better world and ask questions to prevent 9/11 for happening ever again. At least Wil has the guts to care enough to question. Do you?

I made my comments directly to Wil via email. He asked that I post it here.

Thanks for the edit on your front page.

You scared me there for a min...
:D

Hey,

You make a really good point. I hope you'll post it in the comments at the website.

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. :)

Wil

At 03:44 PM 2/9/2002, you wrote:
>When the military hit the innocent people in
>Afghanistan, they thought they were hitting Al-Quida.
>They were wrong. VERY wrong. ...and I also hate the
>term "collateral damage"...
>
>The terrorists who flew planes into the WTC were NOT
>aiming for the leadership or the military of the
>United States. They were aiming for "mothers, sons,
>infants, fathers, daughters, husbands and wives".
>
>"...the people who died on 9/11: the mothers, sons,
>infants, fathers, daughters, husbands and wives, were
>just "collateral damage", right?"
>
>Wrong. Dead Wrong. They were the very targets that the
>terrorist's attacks were designed to hit.
>
>Your point I agree with.
>
>How you tried to make your point made the hair on the
>back of my neck stand straight on end.

War was never "officially" declared for two reasons:
1) Osama and his cronies did not officially represent the Country of Afganistan, nor were they the Afghan Military, or a part of the Afghan government. We (the United States) gave Afghanistan the opportunity to "round" up Osama et al and hand them over. Additionally, the Taliban turned down our offers of help and instead blatently refused to track down and round up Osama/Al Queda and bring them to justice. That whole process took some time, hence no "immediate" "official" declaration of war. Eventualy, the Taliban showed their true colors in support of Osama and Al Queda, making their position very clear, forcing us to move in to seek justice.
2)Whether or not to "officially" declare war (an act that can only be done by the Congress), was very widely debated. If this act didn't deserve a declaration, then what would? The cold reality is.....it boiled down to money....Had the United States declared war on Afghanistan or Al Queda or anyone/anything for the acts of Sept 11, then the innocent people killed would have lost their insurance benefits...life insurance, property insurance etc. Now you may say WHAT!!!, that's obsurd!!, however I implore you, look at your insurance policies....there are exclusions, one of which, 90%+ of the time, is....this policy does not cover "Acts of WAR".
Many thousands of people suffered personal losses and were horrifically victemized by the events of Sept 11. It would have only served to further harm these people by "officially" declaring war.
Lastly, GWB didn't go out on his own and send in troops. Everything that has been done with the war effort, has been done together in unity between the White House and Congress. You may remember the first spending resolution for the "War" was proposed by GWB and less than 36 hours later passed both the House and the Senate with only 1 NO vote. Everything so far has been done in Concert, as if an official declaration had been issued.

Ugh seeing the same arguments again and again is just tiring. We had the right to go after the people responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The Taliban had them in their country but would not give them up willingly. So they deserved to be thrown out of power.

It is terrible that innocent civilians have died. Most of these people though were in villages, not in cities. It is hard to gather intelligence about desolate villages and the people that occupy them. It would be ridiculous to expect no civilian casualties in a war. Stop misinterpreting a calm answer about civilian casualties as a casual attitude towards death.

No matter what you hear about what caused the attacks, it was not Palestine. That might have played a small part, but they hate America for the same reason alot of countries hate America. We are the wealthiest and most diverse nation, so we are easy to hate. Bombing the WTC is like throwing sand in the popular kid's eyes. You hate them, but if they will be your friend you would be honored. (Because ahelluva lot of people from aroudn teh world want to come to America) Just like any act of terrorism, it was done mostly for ego. Ego for the ones who did it and for the ones it was done for.

It was obviously done for this reason since anyone with half a brain realizes terrorism does nothing to help a cause, it only helps strengthen your enemy's resolve and gives them a reason to hate you more. Apparently the only one who saw this was gahndi and martin luther king.

This public service announcement brought to you by common sense and a healthy distaste for spin.

>>i wonder if this will be enough for people to finally turn to more feminist/socialist politics.

>>Here in Britain - through the 70's, 80's and some of the 90's we were DAILY terrorised by a group from Ireland called the IRA. Thousands of innocent civilians died during these attacks, and the nation lived in fear for decades.
Should we have gone a bombed the F%$& out of Ireland ?

Couple questions though... how do you declare war on something that's not a governent. Isn't there some law that provents us from declaring war on a PERSON, we can only declare it on a nation? If we did declare war, it would have had to be on Afghanastan... would the civilian deaths be okay then? No, not really. They suck no matter what happens.

The bigger gripe I have though, is the way that the media handles all this. Any opinion given out is just that, an opinion. THEIR opinion, which is biased in order to get viewers, or generate comments... ratings... it's a show for the public to get them fired up. Nowhere do we see a list of how many civilians were SAVED because someone realized there was a miscalculation and called a bombing run off at the last minute. Nowhere do we see any detail about how many people are alive because they're no longer being mistreated by the Taliban.

The fact that civilian deaths are being relegated to the status of 'Collateral Damage' is sad and disgusting, but it's also disgusting that we don't get the whole picture, only the onesided media view.

I have been farily fortunate in my life. I grew up, and continue to live to this day, in Canada. I have never been the victim of a home invasion or a car jacking. However, I have seen the aftermath of a terrorist attack first hand, with my own eyes. It happened back in 1989, when I was travelling to London, England. A mere few hours before the Boeing 747 carrying me, comfortably reclining in my business-class seat, landed at Heathrow, the IRA set off a bomb in the Commercial Union (CU) tower in the east end of London.

It was very odd, strolling the streats of London early on a Saturday morning, wasting time until my hotel room was ready, to view this 40+ storey building with nearly all the windows blown out. Curtains flapped in the breeze, but on the outside of the building. And sheafs of paper fluttered down to earth like big confetti. It was a very odd experience, to say the least. And as far as I know, as the attack took place in the early hours of the morning, there were no human casualties of this attack.

There is no way that I will even attempt to compare my personal experience over 10 years ago to those experienced by the victims of September 11th.

Even though I am not an American, I fully support, 100%, the actions taken by the US Government in fighting the al Queda/Taliban in Afganistan, and the resulting treatment of detainees at Camp X-Ray. And although it may be sad, I realize that the loss of innocent lives in Afganistan is a necessary aspect to the "war on terror".

Pundits say "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind". But I do not view this as "an eye for an eye". I think of it more as "a life for an eye".

Yes, I agree that this sounds harsh, but I beleive it necessary. As John Travolta stated in the movie "Swordfish", it is the responsibility of the "west" to make the punishment for terrorism so great that terrorism ceases to be an option. The message must be sent loud and clear that any terrorist actions taken on western soil will be answered ten-fold. This is the only way that countries such as Afganistan, or Lybia, or Iraq, will cease harbouring these cowardly criminals. If this message is not sent, then attacks on "our" soil will continue.

The root issue is not one of peace. It is one of ideology, and religion. Just pick up any history text, and look at the driving force between any great conflict: They all boil down to ideology and/or religion. And as much as I would love to see an end to armed conflict, it is just not practical in this situation. Words do not work. As unseemly as it may be,

violence is the supreme force.

Bah, I hate it when I 'get my politics on' cause I just can't seem to shut up:

Seconds after I heard the news of the attacks on the towers I said, "Oh no, the wrong people are going to die because of this."

Posted by ToddOne at February 9, 2002 03:10 PM

-- Ummmm, didn't all the wrong people die IN the attacks, too?

It very much bothers me that this action against 'terrorism'is being called a war yet no war has been declared by congress. It makes me suspicious of the administrations motives.

Posted by fenaray at February 9, 2002 03:24 PM

-- But there's no one to declare war ON. You can't do it. Who did we declare war on in the War on Drugs, or the War on Crime or the War on Poverty? It's become more of a phrase anymore than anything real. Although yes, in this instance, deadly force is most CERTAINLY being used.

And the other thing is, the terrorists dropped two bombs on the US. That was a terrible, terrible, tragedy. Multiply the rage you feel and the patriotic commitment that spawned by a thousand, and you'll start to get a picture of why so many nations have a grievance with the US to start with.

Posted by zorya at February 9, 2002 03:53 PM

-- I did, and I don't get it. I still don't understand who we purposefully bombed and why they hate us. What one thing has the US *EVER* done unprovoked that would cause patriotism and hatred one thousand times worse than the 9/11 fanatacism?

I mean if we want to show Bin Laden something, I want him to see kids from all races, creeds and nationalities playing with each other (at the age of 5) by that age kids don't care about the color of their skin...they are SO innocent!

Posted by Shayne in Houston, TX at February 9, 2002 04:00 PM

-- And what do you tell their parents when they get Anthrax poisoning or look up to see another plane dropping on them. Having children play together (while a BEAUTIFUL image, don't get me wrong) rather than taking action to stop the instigators of terrorism is unrealistic because it just leaves another target. Osama BinLaden isn't going to wake up, see an image of kids on TV and decide that the US is okay. He's going to look at that image, then take it and make a poster that says "See! In America they are rich and decadent! Their children are spoiled! They all should die!" And the cycle starts again. Somehow, the cycle must be broken, and it makes me miserable that innocents die in the process (on either side), but ignoring the problem won't make it go away.

Innocent people do not deserve to die because of a conflict between nations,

Posted by MrsVeteran at February 9, 2002 04:07 PM

-- I had a big long sarcastic post about this one, but have deleted it because this is all getting me too worked up. Suffice it to say that they were dying before we were their BECAUSE of their nation, too.

I'm stopping here, cause I could go on for days....

Artisticspirit, go back to the past way of thinking? You are living in a world that doesn't exist. Not all people will be nice to you if you are nice to them. That just isn't the way things work. There is evil, and always will be. People like you would have us repressed by that evil.

Smart people learn from the past, people like you just ignore it because it doesn't make you *feel* good.

Wil, you are so right on with this one. It's nice to know that someone besides me realizes that this isn't a war. The news calls it a war. The papers call it a war, but in reality they mostly do it for support. Military action doesn't sound as cool i guess. In fact there hasn't been a real "war" since WWII. It's a sad but true fact that our Congress is to afraid durring an election year to do what's right. Either give it the proper title or pull our people out.

I realize this isn't precisely on topic, but if anyone here wants to look up past and up-and-coming legislation about september 11 that isn't distilled by newspapers you can go to
www.thomas.loc.gov.
If you're willing to wade through legalese, it's a good way to find out exactly what the government is trying to do.
Saff

Mandy, I saw no argument that my history lesson was in any way factually unsound. Bob Roth had a great post, and I can see how his would to appear to have a more mild-mannered tone.

Unfortunately this is text-based chat. There is no way to really guage my "anger". I can assure you that I'm not "angry" as you describe it. I am not mindlessly yelling "bomb them" over and over. I am debating the issue, and the issue is war.

The fact is that in trying to "be nice" you are simply causing more suffering. That suffering effects me, and more importantly will effect my future kids. Shouldn't I be passionate about something that serious?

I find it to be very humorus that in complaining about the so-called right-wing intollerace for emotion you expressed your own intollerance for what you *think* my emotion is.

I've also noticed that most of the anti-war, defend Wil, talk seems to be coming from Women, right Mandy?

Debate the argument, not the person. If you can't debate my argument then I must be right?

All you have done is yell "hate mongour". That sure is intelligent. As you mentioned a lot of the right-wing arguments are well thought out, so why isn't yours?

Try again.

Well, seen from my flat on the other side of the Atlantic, that's about how it looks. Without painting it all black, one of the dominant impressions is that the US don't care much about "collateral damage".

There was concern here about the hundreds of thousands of afghan refugees fleeing to the border on the mere announcement that the US were "going to war". We didn't really hear the US worrying about them. (Maybe they did, but we didn't hear them. All we were hearing was "we'll get those bastards!")

Of course what happened was horrible. But that doesn't justify just /any/ reaction to it.

The rest of the world hates us because we don't do what they tell us to do. That simple.

(shrugging flame-retardant suit on)

Ok, Andrew, here we go.
First off, thank you for the history lesson. (Actually that isn't meant to be sarcastic, I am genuinely grateful for any increase in my knowledge about the situation). I admit that I jumped to conclusions about the exact nature of the Taliban's political power.
REGARDLESS it is typically the case in environments of extreme religiosity coupled with poverty that your average Joe Schmo is going to believe what his government tells him, regardless of whether it is oppressing him. The Christian West (typified by the US) has been the banner enemy of the right-wing Islamic Middle East for a long time. And fine, we may not have caused any single one catastrophic incident in the region that would serve as a corollary to 9/11, but our continued actions of supporting those who will facilitate our continued economic success - regardless of how they treat their own people - is of course going to nurture hatred of us. We are richer and more powerful than they are. We have blankets instead of newspapers and COUNTLESS other "necessities" that poverty-stricken countries lack. And Religion (to whomever brought this out) is just as likely to be used as a pretext for war as it is as the primary reason.
And I'm not saying we should just sit back and do nothing to protect ourselves. I'm saying that it can't stop there. And nuking the country is OF COURSE not the answer. The people there may not be innocent, but that isn't necessarily their fault (does that make sense?) If you grow up being taught one thing and that's all you ever knew, regardless of whether it is right or wrong, you don't have a whole lot of choice in that matter. We have the history channel. We have a reasonably free media. They have neither. And there's a hell of a lot more that they don't have.
Of course we should defend ourselves, but owning up to the ramifications of our actions; past, present, and future; is the only way we can judge which actions are best. Not right, not perfect, but best.
And of course most of the pacifist arguments are coming from women, but just because most are expressed from feeling without enumerated rational reasoning does not mean that there is no underlying reasoning. If women ran the world, there would be A LOT LESS conflict than there is, because there wouldn't be testosterone-fueled decision-making. NOT that I want to turn this into a gender-debate.

war is war...everyone suffers...better them than me

I love how everybody has gotten into this. I think we may end up setting the record for most comments on Wil's news page.

This is in response to KJB (which should be 'KGB') in defense of Mad-Rid.

You: That little bit I just wrote probably went over your head. I will attempt to explain.

Me: Was it just me or did that sound intolerant? You're complaining about words such as "Towel Head" from one side of your mouth, while calling him "stupid" from the other. LOL.

You: This country you so vehemently support (that is to say, the USA) was founded on principles of equality and freedom. Freedom of choice, speech, religion, you get the idea.

You: When someone starts bitching about "towel-heads" and "false gods", it gets me to thinking.

You: 1. This person is not espousing basic American ideals.

Me: Uh, didn't you say freedom? He is simply exercising his freedom, and that means he can say whatever the hell he likes. You don't like what he's saying so you call him intolerant. Why isn't it the other way around? You're the one being intolerant.

You: 2. This person really needs to read up on things like "The Holocaust", "Religious Persecution", and "How Not to be a Fuckhead - For Dummies".

Me: You are comparing our defending ourselves to the holocaust? LOL. You know what they say about opening your mouth.

You: I'm going to assume you're a Christian. You're certainly not a Jew or a Muslim, and neither is it likely you're a Buddhist or pretty much any other religion I can think of off the top of my head.

Me: Uh oh, I feel anti-Christian / anti-Religion intolerance coming on.

You: (This is not to say Christians are the only ones who speak like this. Every religion has had someone who has said this - Law of Averages, if nothing else.)

Me: In this statement you just rounded up all Christians and called them hate mongers. Weren't you just talking about how the U.S.A. was about religious freedom? Can you say hypocrite?

You: Now, there's this saying in the Bible; well, two, actually. I'd like to point them out.

You: "Eye for an eye"
You: "Love thy neighbor"

Me: Correction here. First of all Jews and Christians get along for the most part religiously. Don't get me wrong, there are a LOT of disagreements... but we support each other. The Jews follow the Old Testament, which teaches "and eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". The Christians follow the Old Testament, but also the New Testament, which is what separates them. The New Testament is where Jesus comes into play, and instead of teaching "an eye for an eye" he says "I have a better way".

You: What can we learn from this, kids? People are seriously messed up. Here are two lines, both used by one religion, that are both bandied about like nobody's business.

Me: What we can learn from this is how liberals are complete hypocrites. If this isn't an intolerant tirade then I've never seen one.

Me: We can also learn how shallow anti-Christian folks such as yourself are. What does an "eye for an eye" have to do with "love they neighbor". I love my neighbor until he keys my car, then it's time for him to be punished.

You: Let's not forget that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are tied together whether they like it or not; it's called a common origin, kids, and if you don't believe me, you might want to check your facts, because this is nothing new.

Me: Uh yeah, everything is tied together if you go back far enough. We're all tied to Adam and Eve, so I guess everything came from the same place. So what?

Me: Folks, notice how he is trying to call Christians terrorists, saying we're all the same bunch of people. And you're doing a very bad job... try again.

You: I can handle emotional reasons for retaliation. I can handle practical reasons for retaliation. I can even handle political reasons for retaliation. I REFUSE to handle religious and racial biases for retaliation.

You: And neither should anyone else.
You: Thank you.

Me: Wow, talk about a mind-numb anti-religion tirade. But though you won't admit it, you are more religious than anybody here. You belong to the Church of Liberalism.

Me: Not once during your tirade did you establish a link between Christianity and our providing AID to the Northern Alliance in defeating the Taliban. It's the dumbest thing anybody here has said so far.

Me: Regarding words such as "Towel Head". How good of a job do you think we would have done at defeating the Germans during WW2 if we were buddy-buddy with them. To look someone in the face and cut their throat requires a slightly different mentality. Utter stupidity.

Do you really think that all Afghan civilians killed were killed because of stray bombs? If so, then I ask "you": where's your mind??? Do you think american forces held back bombing strategic points because there were civilians close by? Come on! The few stray bombs that did kill innocents, those are shameful. But I'd wager that those bombs only reprensent a tiny portions of all bombs responsible for civilian deaths.

On the other side of the ocean, the 9/11 planes wanted to kill people, I give you this. But most of all they wanted to strike at places, or icons of America. If you simply want to kill people, you strike at the Twin Towers, indeed, but not at the Pentagon. You simply choose the biggest skyscrapers. It just so happens that the biggest skyscrapers were the nervous center of America's economy. A symbol! Just as is the Pentagon.

So the terrorists attacked nervous centers and killed people by doing so. And the world went crazy with horror and cries of inhumanity.

Now tell me one thing: what are we doing differently now? If not attacking nervous centers and killing people at the same time?

Why aren't we monsters ourselves, inhuman weavers of Horror?

This war is bringing the worst in everyone, especially stupidity, egotism and intellectual and value near-sightedness...

Enjoy!

War does not just simply mean combat. War is a status between two nations or states. Al Quida and the Taliban are NOT a legitimate government, but were terrorists, thugs or gangs. War raises our defcon, appropriates funds, activates the different parts of the Geneva convention and TONS of other stupid bureuacratic bullshit. The Taliban & Bin Laden meet the conditions for a declaration of war, nor would they follow international law and such acts as the Geneva Convention. Don't blindly think that war just means combat, because if you look at the US Constitution, International Law mandated by the UN, then you would understand all the background stuff going on that happens when there is a state of war between warring nations. The president & the administration is using the word war in another context than the state of war when describing this conflict. Know the difference between the STATE OF WAR and what goes into it and the dictionary's defination of WAR.

Jeezis.

Its 15 people. A minor, insignificant amount.

You don't need to have an offical declaration of war to know its a war. The WTC / Pentagon attacks? Acts Of War. No need to go through the paperwork when the conclusion is right out there for non-malcontent eyes to see.

Chris,

You're right they're poor and brainwashed in Afghanistan, and that is a result of the onging Civil War. Which is not our fault.

Our responsibility is to ourselves. However as humans I think we have a responsibility to do right and help our neighbors when we can. But in helping we should truly help, and not pull a Bill Clinton and do something in an attempt to raise poll numbers.

The Taliban's reason for hating the U.S. really doesn't matter at all. It is largely because of our support of Israel, and also because we allow free will. We are the infadels.

But regardless the reason the fact is that they do. They would have us enslaved if they had the power to do so. Obviously going over there, shooting things up, and then leaving would be a really dumb thing to do. But the first step of shooting things up cann't be avoided, and that's the current discussion in play. And remember, we're aiding the Northern Alliance. We can discuss what else needs to be done after that stage is complete.

As is usually the case the evils we're fighing over there are the fault of but a few men. They hide behind the brainwashed pawns. But to get to them we have to knock over the pawns.

We did what we could to salvage life. We gave them plenty of time to completely avoid any kind of military action at all. But they made the choice.

You were sounding pretty intelligent until you made the remark about women. As you pointed out women look at everything using emotions. This is ABSOLUTELY THE WORST THING you want in a leader. A classic example is spanking children. I have a feeling this is going to start another discussion, oh well. Women don't like to do this, it doesn't sit with them well. Yet look at a family that instilled discipline into their kids vs. one that didn't. The emotional element that the mother presents is essential in raising a kid, but that's not what you want in a leader. And as we know from women such as Hillary Clinton, they can be just as evil.

The war is nescessary. Any group that hates the U.S. as a result is another problem will most likely have to be dealt with in the same way. However I am hopeful that this problem will be dealt with in the right way, and that won't be nescessary.

Evil exists, fight it head on, or be crushed by it.

Let me just put my flame retardant undies on..

Ok, now I'm ready. The American decision makers know, that for every "terrorist" killed (I use the term terrorist loosely, as I'm not too sure that all of the targets are terrorists), there will be some percentage of innocents killed. Lets say every time they try to kill terrorists, there is a ten percent chance that innocents will die.

Are the still accidental deaths? You can argue that they weren't targetted, but they were. When the US drops as many bombs as it does, it knows that innocents will die. By saying each bomb has a 10% chance of hitting the wrong people, and dropping them anyway, then you are choosing to kill civilians. That is murder.

It is murder to decide to perform an action that you know will kill civilians. The American decision makers know that they will kill civilians. That is murder.

They even say it on television. They talk of reducing collateral damage. They acknowledge that they will kill innocent people, and yet they do it anyways, it is murder.

The decision to kill civilians ten percent of the time, and do it often enough to ensure civilian casualities is no different in my mind from doing something with a 100% chance of civilian casualities. They are both murder.

I can't support retaliation against Afghanistan, because it involves murdering innocent civilians. I also don't support slamming planes into buildings.

Responding to an action with violence will simply beget more violence, and if you don't believe that, if you believe in the idea of peace through murder, or superior firepower, then you are wrong, but in the majority. Until people learnotherwise we will continue a cycle of violence that has been ongoing for thousands of years.

Loa, our military technology is such that we can level a building while doing little more damage than breaking windows to the one next door. We did not go through there bombing residential areas. We hit military targets, and in the instances were we needed to go into a residential area we sent Special Operations teams. A SEAL or Delta Force team would take care of the problem on the ground. There are tens of thousands of Taliban soldiers, and they're very often mixed in with everybody else. Often because the civilians gladly hide them. With a setup like this people will always get hit in the crossfire.

There were even instances of the Taliban trying to trick us into hitting civilian targets for P.R. reasons.

And then you also have anti-american groups that want to make us look bad by inflating civilian casulty numbers. These numbers are coming from Taliban sympathetic news medias inside Afghanistan, so I'd really question those numbers.

Thousands of innocent mothers, children, and elderly died in the firestorm that was Dresden. Should I be worried that history might have the history wrong, and that books should be rewritten accordingly?

Being Jewish, I can rest easy not having to worry about "innocent" Nazis.

Yeah Hearns, don't worry about the flames, I've got the fire extuingisher and I'm right next to ya. Continuing the cycle of violence is called "Big Business" because Kalishnikov's and Stinger missles (spelling?) bring more profits that bottled water, rice and education.

Kman

Ah well, despite the best laid plans of rats and men...

Andrew, I can probably agree with most of what you said up top. As for:
"You were sounding pretty intelligent until you made the remark about women. As you pointed out women look at everything using emotions. This is ABSOLUTELY THE WORST THING you want in a leader."
Not sure how to take the first statement, so I'll ignore it.
As for the second one, I NEVER said that women look at everything using emotions. I don't believe that that forms the basis for decision-making. Sure, it informs the way women look at situations, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. It makes for a fuller grasp of the big picture. A more humanitarian view, if you will. What's wrong with that.
Not to bring up the physical discipline topic too much, but just a point: my mother never hit myself or my brother and we both turned out FINE. "Yet look at a family that instilled discipline into their kids vs. one that didn't." Spanking a child is not the only (or even best) way of discipline, and there are PLENTY of families for which spanking is a regular thing, but where discipline is SORELY lacking. Discipline is not just about hitting a child when it has done something wrong. It's about instilling respect for a parent's authority. And that can be engendered in many other ways which will not later show children that the best way that THEY can gain respect is through physicality. And by the way, from your earlier post. If you punched me in the face, I wouldn't punch you back, I'd sue you for assault and get money from you. Because that in the long run would get me more than the satisfaction of the one moment when I hit you. And if that isn't rational, non-emotion based thinking, I don't know what is. Women aren't necessarily the only ones who make decisions based on emotions.

Oy... just a question for everyone who seems so hellbent on saying that the US is acting like terrorists and murderers by doing what they're doing.

Do you *REALLY* think that the whole problem would have just gone away if we'd not done anything? Do you *TRULY BELIEVE* that Osama BinLaden would have done nothing else after that if we'd just shrugged it off?

This action might not be the best idea in the world, but it seems that no one wants to offer any other viable options. It's easy to point the finger and say "You're bad for doing that!" while not offering any alternatives. But what other way is there to solve the problem?

Don't get me wrong, loss of life in ANY situation is HORRIBLE. But should we really stop an attack because there's a chance that there are civillians there? If we start doing that, all the bad guys will do is round up a bunch of their own women and children and start using them as shields. What then?

Wil, you are just being a little niave. In a perfect world we press some button and magically we wipe out the terrorists, bring Osama Bin Laden to justice and free all those being repressed from that repression. Sounds great right? It can't happen, the world is a dirty place where bad things happen, and nothing is perfect.

We as a nation have every right to protect our very lives from those who seek to snuff them out and part of that means that we have to sometimes do very tough things to ensure our safety and freedom. In World War I and II there we millions and millions of civilian deaths directly from our war efforts but they were necessary in an unfortunte way to make sure you and I could live in the very freedom we choose, you as an actor, myself as an airline pilot, both we beautiful families in a fair and decent country.

Now ask yourself this... we as a nation have very powerful weapons, huge bombs, weapons of mass destruction. But in Afganistan we spent BILLIONS of our tax payer dollars, something I SUPPORT, to use million dollar smart bombs... why? To produce the least possible civilian deaths, to protect the innocent from the evil. Are we perfect, no. As a nation, as individuals we are flawed and always will be.

But... we try... and for someone as smart as you to try to shame our nation and its leaders for doing their best to protect the very life you lead is in itself an utter travesty.

Don, please compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. If you really are so concerned about ensuring A holocaust never happens again, then you'd be serving in places like Kosovo, and certain former Russian Republics right now. You'd be serving in certain countries in Africa doing what you can to prevent holocaust like conditions from ever happening again. You'd volunteer your time right now to mind the family of an innocent Persian/middle eastern unfortunate enough to have immigrated here during this period of time. That is how you keep a memory alive and prevent repitition of A holocaust. If you do these things already or did them in the past as a young man, then, my hat is off to you.

K

To christopher hearns:

You: Responding to an action with violence will simply beget more violence, and if you don't believe that, if you believe in the idea of peace through murder, or superior firepower, then you are wrong, but in the majority. Until people learnotherwise we will continue a cycle of violence that has been ongoing for thousands of years.

Me: That statement is absolutely 100% false. You have a very naive and narrow view of the world. Do you not understand that people like Hitler and Stalon really exist? They're right here in our own country. You've probably gone to school with some of them. Anybody can drag anybody else into a fight. The question is who's going to win. You'd have us enslaved by these people, well they're not going to enslave me. Either they or I will die fighting, but I will not be pushed around.

Me: Religion tells us to turn the other cheek, but that's when it comes to me/myself. I have a responsibility to protect and defend my family with whatever means nescessary.

Me: Go read up on Sergeant York.

To Chris:

You: Andrew, I can probably agree with most of what you said up top.

Me: We have reached an agreement, yay :)

You As for:
"You were sounding pretty intelligent until you made the remark about women. As you pointed out women look at everything using emotions. This is ABSOLUTELY THE WORST THING you want in a leader."
Not sure how to take the first statement, so I'll ignore it.

Me: Yeah, just ignore it. Bad wording, didn't mean to insult.

You: As for the second one, I NEVER said that women look at everything using emotions. I don't believe that that forms the basis for decision-making. Sure, it informs the way women look at situations, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. It makes for a fuller grasp of the big picture. A more humanitarian view, if you will. What's wrong with that.

Me: I disagree. Now first let me say that I have nothing against women, not at all... so nobody take this as me being a bigot. There are plenty of women that make great leaders, and I'd be happy to name several dozen off. My position is that women think differently and as a result go about solving problems in a completely different way. And it is for this reason that women have never played a significant role in leadership throughout the history of the world, and the reason I disagree with the statement that "We'd be better of if Women ran everything".

Me: In your comments you just said that women don't thing with emotions, but then said that they do to a large extent, and "What's wrong with that".

Me: What's wrong it that thinking with emotion does not give you a look at the "bigger picture", it gives you a very narrow view of the here and now.

Me: If an alcoholic is begging, pleading, screaming in agony for more booze to take the pain away, do you respond emotionally and hand him the bottle? No, you have a little backbone, and force him off the stuff. The initial suffering may seem bad, but the end result of him being freed from that slavery is well worth it.

Me: Emotion is bad in leadership simply because you need someone that's capable of making the hard decisions and carrying them out.

Me: When going into Special Operations you are given lots of psychological tests. I know because I'm preparing for service in the SEALs. One of the questions that you're asked is if so ordered would you be willing to kill a child. Men typically respond 70% yes, 30% no. Women respond 5-10% yes, about 90% no. That's quite a difference.

Me: If you're in the middle of an operation to prevent the launch of a nuclear missle, which will kill millions, and you run across a kid en-route you have to make a decision.

1) Ignore the kid and risk having him blow your mission.

2) Try and subdue the kid, again risking your mission.

3) Kill the kid and proceed with the mission.

There can be no hesitation, the soldier must choose option 3. The life of that kid pales in comparision to the importance of the mission.

While most people in leadership positions do not have to look a person in the face and cut their throat they too have to make decisions just as hard. As they put it in Sniper, "Giving orders from behind a desk, and being the guy to carry them out, it's the same damn thing" If anything the burden of true guilt lies in the hands of the person behind the desk.

Regarding physical discipline, not all kids are the same. With some kids it's the only way, and with others, like my brother, just a threat or scolding is enough. And doing nothing more than hitting a kid is of course the wrong answer. But that is very often a nescessary step in properly disciplining a child. Kids should not be taught to answer everything with violence, but they should be taught when and at what level it's appropriate. They should be taught to defend themselves. Anything else is not preparing a child for the world we live in.

Wil and co. - Sorry it took me so long to comment here - was offline for a day and boy did I miss a lot! I agree with Wil and this whole "collateral damage" bullshit. I don't have any big answers, though, wish I did. Wil, have you considered going into politics - even though maybe you can't stand mainstream political parties. Your views would serve us well. I think that Wil has voiced what many of us think, but are too afraid to say. Bravo.

Clay, GREAT point! Being typical the liberals aren't proving a better answer, they're simply complaining about what's being done.

Wil and Co. Bear with me, this is going to be a bit of a rant with tangents left and right.

Let me open by saying i'm a former Air Force member.

Wil, i agree whole heartedly. Its sickening to see so many innocent brushed aside as "oops, looks like our 20 million dollar bomb missed by 10 feet" accidents. War is war, and people will die, innocent or otherwise, we all know this. But how much of this "war" is the fault of who?

One thing people might want to pay attention to is the sudden swing in policy when GWB took office. Everything from the enviornment to foreign policy. The past year has seen US intrests turn from outside to within. EVERY policy decision made since Bush took office has directly supported AMERICAN BUISNESS intrests, not peace, or justice. Just look at the Kyoto treaty. The US, the "leader" in world policy, turns its back on ground breaking enviornmental legistation-- to the shock of just about every country on the planet.

Next, (you'll note i'm not even bringing up the FARC-ed up election of 2000) we've got the ON GOING tail that the economy is pulling back up... a line that the establishment has been shoving down our throats the past year, and where are we? Bush wants to blame it on 9-11, but go back and look at how far OUR economy had fallen BEFORE the attack. We were already in a recession! Bush pushing every bit of legistation he can to buff up our buisnesses and then outta no where come 9-11 (or was it 911... what ever). Bush and Co. have cut off an ungodly number of international ties in order to keep the US out of a recession. --- ok, ofcourse keeping the US out of recession is good, BUT not at the expsense of the rest of the world, which is exactly what Bush has done.

Next, Star Wars. The ballistic missile definse shield that GWB has been all up in arms about, trashing a 20 year old treaty with Russia, which also affects China. Let me tell you first hand. I worked in Space Command for 4 years. For those who dont know, Space Command in the Air Force is the very organization that controls ballistic missile activity along with ballistic missle detection (both ground station and satellite based) along with satellite launching and command control.

So... heres the thing about this missle shield. ITS WORTHLESS!!! AND BUSH KNOWS THIS!!! (i'll grant that the technology is sound.)

Here are the reasons i say its worthless:

1) Every country in the world knows our policy concerning Nukes. Total annhilation. You nuke us, we wipe you out. Period. (remember, i worked in this field for 4 years.) An attack from Russia or China would not happen for this reason alone.

2) The "rogue nations" Bush is talking about could not hit us directly (lack of range on thier missiles) and dispersing such a definse shield would also break numerous other treaties currently in place. And to attack our allies would invoke the same response as above, turning a small country into glass.

So why get rid of this treaty?? Oh, and the idea about space based definses like a space based missile shield or even lasers. To even put such a satellite in orbit would be considered an ACT OF WAR by over half the countries of the world!

I'll grant we need some kind of definse against this possibilty, but a more likely attack comes from the potential that exists for terrorists to buld a nuke STATESIDE and detonate it in a city. Hell, you can get directions for building a nuke off the internet!! And getting ahold of the nuclear material for the bomb is not as hard as the Gov would make one think.

Next topic, remember those worries CNN was spewing forth about small pox? Guess what... the USA and RUSSIA are the ONLY countries to have the small pox virus! So, what does it mean when the government says they are worried about a small pox outbreak? Are we going to poison ourselves? Or have we possibly annoyed our "allies" to the point that they are trying to get the attention of the Administration? Just where is this attack going to come from??

You'll notice that American policy over the past year has been focused on supporting the established conglomorate of buisnesses with whom Bush has allied himself, just look at his Cabinet, and how many of the people that make it up have had BUISNESS dealings with GWB before he was pres or even Gov of Texas. Bush was literally strong arming the world, and then out of no where comes 9-11. Suddenly the US seems pretty humble, setting up a "coalition" as quickly as it can, pulling allies that we havent talked to in 20 years. And now, we have our "first step victory" in Afganistan. Now, once again, Bush is strong arming the world.. Watch out Iraq, Korea, and where ever else Amreican policy is challenged. You just might be next on Bush's To Do list.

I welcome any rebuttle, for or against.

Attacking Afghanistan was the only way to take away Al-Queada's ability to attack America. At least temporarily.
It is the president's job to prevent attacks on American people. If bombing Afghanistan to disrupt the terrorist's plans to continue to attack our country killed a few innocents, well that can't be helped.
What happened on 9/11 was only a taster. Did you not see their training camps? They have thousands of terrorists in training to launch similar and much worse attacks. Maps of U.S. nuclear power plants and water reservoirs were found in Afghanistan by U.S. soldiers. That gives us an indication of what kind of condition the U.S. would be in now if Bush had not sent in the military.

The terrorists could and would and maybe someday will crash a plane into a nuclear power plant. Millions would die.

Wil, ask yourself how many Nuclear power stations are in California.
Ask yourself how safe your dronking water will be tomorrow. There are countless ways the terrorists can attack us.

Bush has to do everything in his power to stop that. He was elected to protect the American people and even though all lives are equal, his priorties have to lie with the protection of us.

Don't underestimate the dangers we are in.
I'm glad he doesn't.

No-one (except Al-Queda) likes to see innocent people killed anywhere but given the choice, I'd rather not see terrorists having a field day crashing our planes into New York, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston, my house, your house, childrens' schools, packed sports stadium, power stations etc....

Andrew,
Ok, let me clarify myself better; I realize that my argument was a tad bit muddled above. I do believe that most women are more emotion-oriented than men in terms of the way they VIEW situations. That does not mean that that VIEW necessarily impedes the ability to make a rational decision. Sure, with some it does, then again the same is true for men who think emotionally.
You: My position is that women think differently and as a result go about solving problems in a completely different way. And it is for this reason that women have never played a significant role in leadership throughout the history of the world, and the reason I disagree with the statement that "We'd be better of if Women ran
everything".

No argument with women thinking differently and problem-solving differently than men. No problem with the assertion that that is why women have been marginalized when it comes to politics and leadership in the past. I don't think that it necessarily follows, however, that
A. Things would not have been better had the past decisions been made by women
B. Now, when technology and the after effects of said technology are RADICALLY DIFFERENT than they have ever been before, that decisionmaking should not be more humane in nature.

You:What's wrong it that thinking with emotion does not give you a look at the "bigger picture", it gives you a very narrow view of the here and now.

Me: That depends on which here and now we're talking about. A policy (devised and pursued by men) which unequivocably demands total nuclear retaliation and global destruction seems rather short-sighted to me, personally. Well, the same goes for nuclear weaponry PERIOD.

You: Men typically respond 70% yes, 30% no. Women respond 5-10% yes, about 90% no. That's quite a difference.
Sure is. But you're reasoning is a bit off on the main issue methinks. The reason being that to be a "world leader" one necessarily SHOULD be more fit for the job than 95% of the people out there. Those women OR MEN who could not stomach making tough decisions should already be disqualified from the job. The example you give is, I think, a bit simplistic. (No offense meant!) But just because 70% of men are more able to handle blowing children apart IF THEY ARE ORDERED to do so, does not mean that they are more capable of MAKING TOUGH DECISIONS. It may just mean they are more easily able to write off their own consciences.

BTW, I didn't mean any disrespect to servicepeople and meant no implication of amorality as such. What I mean is that you want a drone mentality in the trenches. Not necessarily in the one calling the shots.

To Mike:

You haven't the slightest clue as to what you're talking about. I'm going to slam you on the very first thing you mentioned in your tirade, The Kyoto Treaty (or 'Protocol'). The rest of you can apply the silliness of his position on this argument with everything else he had to say.

Now for those of you that don't know what The Kyoto Treaty is:

"The Kyoto Protocol, adopted by negotiators representing 160 nations meeting in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, marked the culmination of a five-year United Nations campaign to persuade the nations of the world to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If ratified by enough countries, the treaty would commit the developed countries, including the United States, to reduce their emissions of six greenhouse gases an average of five percent below 1990 levels during a five-year period beginning 2008. The U.S. share would be seven percent below 1990 levels. That would mean 30 percent below currently projected emissions for the U.S. in 2010."

Even before the Kyoto Protocol was agreed to the Senate passed Resolution 98 with a 95-0 vote with the statement "In the face of scientific developments, it is clear that no rational justification can be presented to the Congress or the American people for rushing into a binding agreement that unilaterally will cut our energy usage." We voted against it before the U.N. clowns did their thing and cut it off at the pass.

Yet even after this you have slimy democrat politicians like Sen. Dianne Feinstein, demanding that we do something about it in the news, when she herself was one of the senators who voted against it. Typical. Clinton never even submitted the Kyoto Protocol. It's a treaty. He never sent it for ratification because he knew he didn't have the votes. And the protocol was Gore-negotiated.

There will be no American ratification until there is participation by the developing nations and evidence is presented that the Protocol will not harm the U.S. economy. More than 18,000 scientists (http://www.oism.org/pproject/) have said there is no human-induced global warming, the United States has withdrawn from the Protocol, and Japan has announced that it will not enforce emissions reductions required to meet its targets.

Clinton and Gore's own boys said that Kyoto was a bad thing. In fact, to date, NONE of the nations that ratified the treaty are enforcing it.

The Kyoto Protocol on global warming, has nothing to do with global warming. It never did. It's aimed at killing our access to energy, as well as destroying our private property rights, which are the very foundation of our liberty. I pretty good article can be found here, http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26209

Bush, in his wisdom, understands this and as such stayed away from Kyoto.

To Chris:

You: I do believe that most women are more emotion-oriented than men in terms of the way they VIEW situations. That does not mean that that VIEW necessarily impedes the ability to make a rational decision. Sure, with some it does, then again the same is true for men who think emotionally.

Me: That's a nice thought, but it's just not reality. It does impede the ability to make a rational decision. And it's much more complex than that. Women flat out think differently. They don't think like Men, but also have more emotions as an 'added plus', they are just completely different.

Me: Look at our education system. The decline of our education system can be traced back to women gaining control over it. The NEA should merge with NOW.

Me: Instead of taking a hard-nosed approach and working the crap out of everyone, and setting the bar to a point were nobody can reach it, we have a system with the goal of making people feel good. That attitude is what's wrong with our education, along with the indoctrination, but that's a separate discussion.

Me: Our public education has almost the worst academics in the world. However our students have the highest self-esteem and confidence rate. So we're the dumbest and feel great about it! lol :)

Me: The goal should be to push everybody to the limit of their abilities, not hold everybody back to the ability of the dumbest so they don't feel bad. That is an example of an emotion-based policy created by women.

You: No argument with women thinking differently and problem-solving differently than men. No problem with the assertion that that is why women have been marginalized when it comes to politics and leadership in the past. I don't think that it necessarily follows, however, that
A. Things would not have been better had the past decisions been made by women
B. Now, when technology and the after effects of said technology are RADICALLY DIFFERENT than they have ever been before, that decisionmaking should not be more humane in nature.

Me: I am a little confused by this past section. You didn't provide any reason for why #A would be the case. I don't understand #B. I think you are trying to say that the world is different because of our technology. If so that is 100% false. People are what they are... the technology improvement simply means that we'll be enslaved by guys with laser guns instead of muskets. I love Star Trek, but its socialistic ideals are a bunch of crap.

You: That depends on which here and now we're talking about. A policy (devised and pursued by men) which unequivocably demands total nuclear retaliation and global destruction seems rather short-sighted to me, personally. Well, the same goes for nuclear weaponry PERIOD.

Me: What would be a better solution? Give me a better answer that you think the superior woman would have come up with?

You: Sure is. But you're reasoning is a bit off on the main issue methinks. The reason being that to be a "world leader" one necessarily SHOULD be more fit for the job than 95% of the people out there. Those women OR MEN who could not stomach making tough decisions should already be disqualified from the job. The example you give is, I think, a bit simplistic. (No offense meant!) But just because 70% of men are more able to handle blowing children apart IF THEY ARE ORDERED to do so, does not mean that they are more capable of MAKING TOUGH DECISIONS. It may just mean they are more easily able to write off their own consciences.

Me: I suppose a world leader should be above the 95% marker, but we all know that isn't the case. I think you're getting really desparate to support a weak statement. So we should get the best 1% of women and put them in charge? Or are you looking for women that act more like men? I mean come on. The point is, what causes those 95% to make the wrong decision? Whatever that is, it's in all women.

Me: The fact is that if women did make great leaders we would have had one. In the time that we've been alive I think we would have caught on to them making better decisions. It just isn't so. We've all heard about the Mars vs. Venus books, heard the comments guys make about their wives, experienced the reactions our mother has to certain behavior. We are the way we are.

The roles have been selected, changing them will just cause more problems. I know I pissed of some women with that one :)

Wil, I'm with you all the way on this. I know that there was really no other solution that the majority of people in this country would accept, however I firmly believe that even targeted bombing of Afganistan is wrong. I think as a world power, the US could have gotten a great deal more world sympathy and support if they had gone the route of civil prosecution and had declared terrorist acts those of barbaric countries. If the U.S. had taken the moral high-road of not furthering violence, it would be far less likely for terrorist activities to retain significant support.
Unfortunately the majority of this country is far more into direct and visible signs of revenge for the tragedies that occured on 9/11 rather than creating a place in the world where terrorism is not a viable political option.

Andrew,

Maybe I should have been more clear as to my intent with my earlier post. I was not entering the debate on whether the War on Terrorism is a good or bad thing. I was simply making observations on a completely peripheral matter (i.e. how moderates vs. wingnuts argue differently, and how effective that makes their respective arguments).

Was it a groundbreaking post? No.
Did it add anything to the debate? No.
Looking back, should I have bothered to post it? Probably not.
I was just inserting a personal observation gleaned from reading the multitude of comments.

I originally decided NOT to try and argue specific points and join the debate, because I think it is pointless to try and change people's minds in a forum like this. I am standing by that decision.

Suffice it to say that while I appreciate your overall point of view, I disagree with you on some of your conclusions and leaps of logic. You've even included some examples in your response to me. E.g. "The fact is that in trying to "be nice" you are simply causing more suffering" is just laughable and totally out of left field. I mean, where did that even come from? I haven't even stated my opinion on the military action. For all you know I could be wholeheartedly for it. Just because I lean left doesn't mean I can't be bloodthirsty. :-)

But I never said that your "history" lesson was factually unsound. I was just amused by its inclusion, since it was so obviously cut-and-paste, which is why I cheekily mentioned it. It is actually accurate from what I can tell, organized, and well-written. It was a breath of fresh air compared to your other posts, since it only had to be read once to figure out what you were trying to say. (Poor writing skills, grammar and multiple typos are personal pet peeves of mine and usually make me skip over such comments).

As for "anti-war, defend Wil, talk" coming from women, what does that have to do with me? Remember, I still haven't entered the debate. And attributing a "hate mongour [sic]" quote to me is also interesting, let alone calling it "All [I] have done". "Debate the argument, not the person" indeed.

I'll concede your point about the irony of my own intolerance for other people expressing intolerance. I've been called on that kind of logic before (Bluesman?) and rightly so. It is humourous, and I am likely guilty of it again in this post. My bad.

So Andrew, how about we agree to disagree, call a truce and let it go? Continue to be passionate about your ideas, work on your arguments, and maybe one day you'll convince me of something, or at least get me to enter into the debate. :-)

Since you seem so sure of the facts concerning Kyoto, we'll skip that issue.

On to the rest...
Sillyness Andy?

Hardly. In fact, i'll sum it up in one word, ENRON.

Tell me, how much time have you spent in the miltary? Specifically how much time in Space Command (in any branch.)

I can garantee, if a nuclear attack were to occur in the US, it would be in the fashion that they've been sporting on the news recently. The "dirty bomb" which is to say, a "regular" bomb, but with nuclear material mixed in. Or, of course, the good ol, home grown, full fleged nuke built right here in the good ol US of A with materials you get fresh off the Home Depot/Radio Shack shelf. I delt with nukes and the methods to detect their launch/ progression and detonation for years. This shield is a gag by the administration and a reflection of thier lack of concern about thier actions. Example. It takes a sub launched missle SIX minutes, from launch, to detonation. SIX MINUTES!! Thats enough time to call the president from Norad in Colorado and tell him to place his head between his legs ... Right after he gets in his plane and flys off to Florida to read to some kids that is.

Who was in the white house by the way when all this went down on 9-11? Oh,.. darn... thats right, Wise ol Bush was in Florida. Reading to kids.

And, darn it... we gotta keep this guy safe from a jumbo jet liner flying into Air Force One, WITH MILITARY ESCORT, so lets send him to Nebraska for a few hours till the dust settles. But wait... wasn't there a threat on Air Force One... umm well we got a call in... but nothing specificall mentioned AF1. But just 2 days ago you said you did.

Go back and review events since Bush came into office Andy. The big wigs in Texas, sitting on their oil fields, and oh, lets not forget the ones moved from the oild fields to the White House Cabinet. Oh, and didn't we mention how many of those Execs/Cabinet members are also Execs (past and present) of Pharmicuitcal compaies also??

Oops, did someone here Small Pox?? DOH!!

To Andrew:
I agree that women think completely differently from men (as a generalization), nor did I mean to imply differently above.
I also agree that the public education system in this country is in shambles, and if you say that's because of women, then ok. I don't know whether it is or not, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Being a graduate of public education, I must say it was a joke, if not as much of a joke as the Born-Again Christian school (completely male dominated in decision-making, btw) that I had earlier attended.

You:I am a little confused by this past section. .... I think you are trying to say that the world is different because of our technology. If so that is 100% false. People are what they are... the technology improvement simply means that we'll be enslaved by guys with laser guns instead of muskets.

Me: You're misunderstanding me. The world is 100% different now because of the electronic revolution. Of course it is. That does NOT mean that human nature has changed, merely that the ramifications of men's actions have changed. 200 years ago, if you decided you hated your neighboring country, you could gather up your army with their muskets and kill a bunch of people. Fine. Now, if you decided you hated your neighboring country, you could train nuclear weapons on each other and play a game of mass-destructive chicken. Read: India/Pakistan. THAT is why a change in basic politics may become necessary.
A good example: women have recently been courted (no pun intended) into the legal profession because women are by nature more likely to pursue mediation/arbitration rather than litigation because women are by nature less confrontational. What I'm trying (perhaps badly..) to say is that now that the stakes of confrontation have been driven so high by the sophistication of our technology, perhaps the reins of the beast should be given to those people (REGARDLESS OF GENDER) less likely to gallop out of control. And I'm not talking about just the U.S., OBVIOUSLY. To put an arbitrator on the throne (so to speak) in a time of open confrontation with a non-negotiating opponent is not a good mood, but by educating our enemies... oh nevermind, this is turning into one big muddle.

You: What would be a better solution? Give me a better answer that you think the superior woman would have come up with?
Me: Well for one thing, a world-wide nuclear disarmament (provided it could be enforced) would be a start. However, since we have the big guns, we're the last to offer to put them away.

You:So we should get the best 1% of women and put them in charge? Or are you looking for women that act more like men? I mean come on. The point is, what causes those 95% to make the wrong decision? Whatever that is, it's in all women.

So if it's in all women, then what is it that make the 5-10% make the "right" decision? And come on, of course I didn't mean that we should get the top 1% of women and put them in charge, but there is certainly something to be said for political meritocracy. And by the way, "acting rational" does not equal "acting like a man."

You: The fact is that if women did make great leaders we would have had one.

That's drivel. Therefore, no African Americans (regardless of gender), Asian American or Hispanics are fit for presidency either! And there have been plenty of women leaders, and great ones at that, just not in this country. Remember, women only got the vote in this country AN EYEBLINK ago. What's your explanation of that other than male dominated western society based on aggression and elitism?

PS to my previous post...

Before this turns into a "My candidate it better than your canidadate" argument, let me state that i'm just as happy as the next guy to have Clitnon-Gore out of the picture.

But i haven't seen a puppet this good since Disney.

AAAARGH!! Such an emotive issue, nobody is completely right, nobody is completely wrong. (I know, I know, that dreaded fence again). I cannot condone killing because of religion. God, Allah, Buddha or whatever your inclination believes in the sanctity of human life, no matter who you are or what country you live in. It is people who decide the life is unimportant. Time to say (for me personally) I don't have any answers, but we as all people must try to find a better way. We cannot keep on killing people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong!! It cannot be justified. EVER. Great rants everyone on this page. I LOVE this website!!

Tiana B.

Some things that bring questions to my mind...
President Bush keeps mentioning that the U.S. is at war but refuses to call the people they hold captive as prisoners of war but as detainees.
They are not given the same rights as prisoners of war. When I see the prisoners on CNN I ask myself what is the reason that the require two soldiers to hold them up when they are being moved about? What are they doing to them? Are they pumping them full of drugs or what? Why did the U.S. have to transport them all the way to Cuba? Do they think its easier to put them there as detainees so they can do what ever they have to to get information from them?

I'm amazed that so few Afghani have died in this action, whatever one calls it. I'm grateful for the modern technology of our military that lets them strike with precision, precision that does indeed minimize unintentional losses of non-combatants.

Yes, it's operated by humans and humans make mistakes. Costly mistakes. But one has a choice: take the risk of making the mistakes, or leave a regime in power that supports terrorism, and leave a terrorist network alone so they can plan and execute more attrocities, killing far too many more thousands than those that perish due to human error.

That, of course, is what ultimately sucks: the decision over who must die, or at least risk death. Given the two huge pits now left in the southern tip of Manhatten, the liberation of a horribly oppressed people, and the success at interdiction of terrorism world wide, I would say that the right choice has been made.

I respect the fact that the deaths of innocent Afghani appalls you Wil. But remember too that, simply because a very great number of people love you dearly for this site and for your artistic endeavors, your voice carries a surprising amount of credibility and weight. Perhaps too it's because of your incredible honesty and openess - you seem to me to be an A-1 patriotic American.

I'm sure that Jane Fonda thought along similar paths when she went to Vietnam. You haven't remotely gone the road that led to the depths of her treason, but raging in paragraph after paragraph about how all this sucks won't make the problem go away.

Rage and free speech go hand in hand. They are an energy and an instrument that should be used with the greatest of caution, especially by those whose credibility is the greatest with the most people. Simply put: You are not just some guy with a website! :)

In the end, though, it's just us or the terrorists.

Blood will be shed on both sides, but the way things are going, more will be shed on theirs.

By the way - terrorism is not political. It is an act of aggression intended to affect political ends. I do not advocate response to terrorism as "revenge." I advocate response to terrorism in kind. If Bin Laden wanted to debate for a better world order, his commentary would have been welcomed, even if it was as far out of whack as he seems to be. Freedom of speech is not an American invention. Instead, he chose to shed the blood of his enemy to make his point. It is only that form of communication in return that is even remotely appropriate. As for the Taliban - the friend of my enemy is my enemy as well. They stood with Bin Laden, even after 9/11, and as the ruling power in Afghanistan, that made Afghanistan a legitimate battleground. Sorry, but that's the way war works, declared or otherwise.

Steve

Mandy, we shall agree to disagree for now then.

But I want to point out that your comments don't all add up. You say that your intent was not to debate, but to express your opinion that I would be more convincing if I took on a softer tone. Am I right?

If that's the case then why are we "agreeing to disagree". Since you have not entered the debate, and as you put it "For all you know I could be wholeheartedly for it", then what is there to agree or disagree on?

You are trying to remain neutral but you're not.

You go on to make comments such as "leaps of logic" implying that I'm not thinking things out to the proper conclusion, your conclusion.

All the while you haven't pointed out what you consider to be a "leap of logic".

You also made very shallow attempts to discredit me because of some grammatical errors. This is another example of debating the person instead of the issue.

If you were truly honest in what you claimed to be your intent you would have left out about 3/4 of what you said.

So, yeah, you did it again :)

Also, the history lesson wasn't a cut-and-paste. I did have to lookup a few details that I forgot, but I wrote the whole thing.

My husband Jeff said pretty much the same thing, that we should review our foreign policies. Granted our policies are not an excuse to kill 3000 innocent people.

I think a more fitting comparison would be the Oklahoma City bombing (you know, that large terrorist attack where the government didn't pay out millions to the victims). McVeigh stated that the children in the daycare that he killed were "collateral damage." He was villified for this statement, as well he should have been. Yet, it's apparently okay when the US government does the same.

To Mike:

You: Since you seem so sure of the facts concerning Kyoto, we'll skip that issue.

Me: Don’t you mean you’ll concede the issue. I’m right and you were wrong? That’s what a personal with character says after losing an argument. But that would get in the way of your bias.

Me: Originally we were debating the loss of civilian lives, you dedicated about a sentence of your post to that. The other 99% of it was just a mindless rant against Bush. I totally owned you on the Kyoto issue and now you want me to do the same thing with everything else you had to say too? Great, well here it goes. I’m going to use your original post instead of the latest copycat.

You: Let me open by saying i'm a former Air Force member.

You: Wil, i agree whole heartedly. Its sickening to see so many innocent brushed aside as "oops, looks like our 20 million dollar bomb missed by 10 feet" accidents. War is war, and people will die, innocent or otherwise, we all know this. But how much of this "war" is the fault of who?

*** End of current discussion, on to Bush rant ***

You: One thing people might want to pay attention to is the sudden swing in policy when GWB took office. Everything from the enviornment to foreign policy. The past year has seen US intrests turn from outside to within. EVERY policy decision made since Bush took office has directly supported AMERICAN BUISNESS intrests, not peace, or justice. Just look at the Kyoto treaty. The US, the "leader" in world policy, turns its back on ground breaking enviornmental legistation-- to the shock of just about every country on the planet.

Me: Yeah, we discussed the Kyoto Treaty, so much for “groundbreaking” environmental legislation. I sure hope you know more about bombs than the environment, or else this will be too easy.

You: Next, (you'll note i'm not even bringing up the FARC-ed up election of 2000)

Me: Uh, you just did. And BTW, you will lose that argument. It will be worse than the Kyoto argument.

You: we've got the ON GOING tail that the economy is pulling back up... a line that the establishment has been shoving down our throats the past year, and where are we? Bush wants to blame it on 9-11, but go back and look at how far OUR economy had fallen BEFORE the attack. We were already in a recession! Bush pushing every bit of legistation he can to buff up our buisnesses and then outta no where come 9-11 (or was it 911... what ever). Bush and Co. have cut off an ungodly number of international ties in order to keep the US out of a recession. --- ok, ofcourse keeping the US out of recession is good, BUT not at the expsense of the rest of the world, which is exactly what Bush has done.

Me: Yeah, the ongoing economic problems that were caused by, and started during, the Clinton Administration. And 9-11 was certainly a contributing factor to the current state of affairs. I report was released showing that 9-11 did almost a trillion dollars in economic damages. That’s a LOT. So imply that the economy is Bush’s fault is total ignorance. You say that we’re somehow hurting the rest of the world in trying to boost our economy. Do please enlighten all of us with that information. You made the claim, time to back it up.

You: Next, Star Wars. The ballistic missile definse shield that GWB has been all up in arms about, trashing a 20 year old treaty with Russia, which also affects China. Let me tell you first hand. I worked in Space Command for 4 years. For those who dont know, Space Command in the Air Force is the very organization that controls ballistic missile activity along with ballistic missle detection (both ground station and satellite based) along with satellite launching and command control.

You: So... heres the thing about this missle shield. ITS WORTHLESS!!! AND BUSH KNOWS THIS!!! (i'll grant that the technology is sound.)

You: Here are the reasons i say its worthless:

You: 1) Every country in the world knows our policy concerning Nukes. Total annhilation. You nuke us, we wipe you out. Period. (remember, i worked in this field for 4 years.) An attack from Russia or China would not happen for this reason alone.

You: 2) The "rogue nations" Bush is talking about could not hit us directly (lack of range on thier missiles) and dispersing such a definse shield would also break numerous other treaties currently in place. And to attack our allies would invoke the same response as above, turning a small country into glass.

You: So why get rid of this treaty?? Oh, and the idea about space based definses like a space based missile shield or even lasers. To even put such a satellite in orbit would be considered an ACT OF WAR by over half the countries of the world!

You: I'll grant we need some kind of definse against this possibilty, but a more likely attack comes from the potential that exists for terrorists to buld a nuke STATESIDE and detonate it in a city. Hell, you can get directions for building a nuke off the internet!! And getting ahold of the nuclear material for the bomb is not as hard as the Gov would make one think.

Me: You must have been on the college program, because you didn’t learn a damned thing.

Me: Granted the defense shield will not solve all problems at once; it will take care of a few of them. It’s better to have a gun and not need it, then to need a gun and not have one. There are rogue nations that have the technology necessary to deliver a nuke through the air, overseas, to U.S. soil. And of course countries like Russia and China, which very often fund those rogue nations. The defense of mutually assured destruction is a lousy one, and that’s the reason we’re abandoning the current agreements. The U.S. has never attempted to take over another country, with our form of government powers like Russia and China have nothing to fear except themselves. We on the other hand do have to fear them. The defense shield technology will allow us to protect ourselves against a large number of possibilities. That technology will also be useful in other areas. The 9-11 attacks could have been a lot less catastrophic had we already had this technology. The second a plane veers off course our computers
see it, and this technology could have been used to take out the planes before they got anywhere near the pentagon or the trade center. At that time we wouldn’t have shot them down though, but today we would.

Me: An attack wouldn’t come directly from Russia or China, but it could very well come from say North Korea, funded and supported by China.

Me: The treat of a land-based attack is also a possibility, which is why our border problem needs to be corrected. This is one area where I totally disagree with Bush. I’m totally against handing citizenship over to a bunch of people. The border needs to be locked down. There is no good reason not to build it, but a lot of good reasons to build it.

You: Next topic, remember those worries CNN was spewing forth about small pox? Guess what... the USA and RUSSIA are the ONLY countries to have the small pox virus! So, what does it mean when the government says they are worried about a small pox outbreak? Are we going to poison ourselves? Or have we possibly annoyed our "allies" to the point that they are trying to get the attention of the Administration? Just where is this attack going to come from??

Me: I know absolutely nothing about smallpox, so you may be right. But what does that have to do with anything? I doesn’t relate to Bush, Star Wars, and certainly not civilian casualties in Afghanistan. What is your point?

You: You'll notice that American policy over the past year has been focused on supporting the established conglomorate of buisnesses with whom Bush has allied himself, just look at his Cabinet, and how many of the people that make it up have had BUISNESS dealings with GWB before he was pres or even Gov of Texas. Bush was literally strong arming the world, and then out of no where comes 9-11. Suddenly the US seems pretty humble, setting up a "coalition" as quickly as it can, pulling allies that we havent talked to in 20 years. And now, we have our "first step victory" in Afganistan. Now, once again, Bush is strong arming the world.. Watch out Iraq, Korea, and where ever else Amreican policy is challenged. You just might be next on Bush's To Do list.

Me: Ok, now this really getting silly. What is wrong with capitalism? Nothing, it is what makes this country great. It is what has turned us into the richest and most prosperous nation in the world. Could it possibly be that your beef is having to work and earn what others have? Do you think it should be handed to you?

Me: Yes, Bush was a businessman before going into politics. Would you rather have someone like Al Gore than was born with a silver spoon in his mouth to a Senator that voted against the ’64 Civil Rights Act? What kind of a background should a person have before running a country? Corporate America is cutthroat, companies are forced to get as much as they can from as little as possible. Government on the other hand doesn’t have to earn anything. So wouldn’t taking a business-like approach with government solve a few problems? I’d say so. It would solve a LOT of problems. You say that a lot of Bush’s cabinet members had business dealings with him in the past. So what? Who else would he know, people that he’d never met before? If you’re a businessman then you hang out around businessman. Wouldn’t it make sense to use people you know and can trust? Duh!!!

Now please explain to all of us how Bush is “strong-arming” the world. This ought to be great.

Iraq, Korea? Only an idiot would defend them. If you don’t understand why Iraq is on the radar then you are completely out of it. I can understand you not being up-to-date with Korea because that was probably before your time; same with me, but a history book will solve that problem.

Build a better foundation for your position and we’ll continue some more.

Wow...

Not much I could say about this that hasen't been said already, but......

I won't comment on the "right" or "wrong" of anything regarding this subject. It's all been said 100 times, by each "side", and all have said it better than I could have.

When I read Wil's post, it reminded me of what Carl Sagan once said, and wrote about in his book, "Pale Blue Dot". It's been brought up before at other sites, but I thought it might be a little refreshing here to all of those that have strong opinions, whatever they are. Carl Sagan was commenting on the spacecraft "Voyager", and the last photos that it took while it was leaving our solar system. It took a picture of the Earth, suspended in a mote of a sunbeam. I quote,

"Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you have ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilizatoiin, every king and pesant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar", every "supreme leader", every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there-on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam."

"The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all of those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of the pixel on the scarcely disgtingishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how feverent their hatreds."

"Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some priviledged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves."

"The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand."

"It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, in underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known."

I am just one lonely astronomer quoting another one, and I am not sure if any of this will make a difference. It's just another perspective from an inhabitant of this pale blue dot.

All spelling mistakes are mine, and not Carl Sagan's.

Please don't apologize for your thoughts. You are making people think (god forbid) and question their own thoughts and opinions. That is so healthy. Thank you.

Chris, I understand your position a lot better now. And you're right, policies do have to change, as you described, because of technology. But regarding a less-confrontational tone I disagree. Ronald Reagan is the classic example. What would be the current state of affairs had he not been just as, if not more, agressive and confrontational than the Russians? In matters such as this you have to be just as tough, and willing to be just as mean and nasty as the people you're dealing with. Otherwise you'll lose.

You're right that very often women are better for certain roles. Sales is another good example. Regarding your arbitration vs. litigation argument, that actually scares me. That sounds like someone is going to get bent over (you or me) because the woman lawyer didn't want to fight it to the tooth and nail as it should be. See how it can go both ways? There are cases where that's a good thing, and cases where it's not.

And educating enemies? Yeah, that's really going to screw things up. That's like trying to explain to the bully why hitting you is a bad thing. LOL. Unless you can put him on the floor your lunch money will be gone that day, and maybe the next, and the next...

A world disarmament would be really stupid, and flat out will just never happen. But I don't see how that's a woman vs. man idea. Bush himself says he wants to reduce our nuclear arsenal to 1/3 of what it currently is... in an effort to sorta go towards exactly what you're suggesting. It sounds like a great thing, but NEVER would someone like China or Russia go for it.

Actually there are lots of examples of African American leaders. In this country, and in their own country long before America existed.

I'm not speaking about us not ever having had a female president. With the number of horrible presidents we've had that would be a really bad test case. I'm talking about the entire history of the world. Why is it that throughout history men seem to be always running the show? The examples of female leaders are so few and far between that they aren't hardly worth mentioning. And don't tell me that it's because they were "repressed". If they were as you claim, and have the solution to all our problems, then they could have pulled themselves out of "bondage".

Just look at corporate america. Who runs it? Guys do. Women have had just as much, if not more, opportunity to succeed in the business world. They are much more likely to get government handouts and loans for business startups, and on average have better education opportunities. Guys started all of the powerful companies I’m familiar with. Including those started in the past 20 or even 10 years. Microsoft, Dell, Compaq, Novell, Cisco, Adobe, Apple, Dream Works, Lucas Arts, and need I go down the whole list? Men founded everything all from computers, to entertainment, to autos and airlines. The argument of a woman not being able to work her way up the corporate food chain might hold water, but why is it that they haven't started any companies themselves?

I own some startups myself and in dealing with other startup companies I've seen virtually no women, never one that started the company. And no offense to the women here, but it's been my experience that trying to establish a relationship or contract with a company (large or small) is a lot easier when dealing with a guy. I've literally had women break down and cry on the phone. This is no joke. I was developing some custom software for a utility company in Texas and my contact at the company, a woman, was having some problems with the software while she was in the middle of a demo. She was presenting the software to some other people. I had told her to not do certain things because the software wasn't finished, but she did them anyway... and as a result embarrassed herself in front of a lot of people. She didn't understand what was going on at the time (before embarrassment), so she took a break to call me on the phone about it. I explained the problem, she freaked out because she knew she was about to look bad. She started bawling like a little girl on the phone. It was pathetic. I’ve had two women get that way on the phone with me. I’ve dealt with probably 8x as many guys and never had a reaction even close to that. And I’ve dealt with several hundred people. Maybe even into the 4 digits.

It's so good to hear so many thinking people expressing agreement that the value of human life extends farther than America's borders. I've heard far too much from the opposing mentality.

While I agree that there is a massive difference between the intentional killing of innocent civilians, and the casualties of war who are killed simply because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time, I find it still difficult to justify these deaths in any circumstances. How can we easily accept killing innocents, while on a mission seeking retribution for the death of other innocents? Seems rather self defeating to me.

An alternate angle of this issue has been discussed in depth on http://mentalanguish.net/archives/00000015.html , if anyone is interested in one person's opinions (plug)

I've re-read my comments, and I can't see how to make myself more clear, other than to suggest a more careful reading on your part as well, Andrew. However, the fact that my comments are so easily misinterpreted is the very reason I am trying (apparently unsuccessfully) to avoid the main debate.

Maybe I will add this: my original post was more directed at the Mad-Rid's than at you. I included your name because I disagreed with *some* of the conclusions in your very numerous comments, and I found the enormously long history lesson funny. (So it wasn't a cut-n-paste, my apologies; it must have taken you a very long time to type in, way to go!). So for originally including your name and offending you, I apologize as well. Can we leave it at that?

I'm done with this fruitless argument anyhow. I think I'll go play Monkey Island instead. :-)

Ack! Nevermind. I take it back, Andrew. I had been laughing off your offensive attitudes towards women, but your last one just took the cake. You no longer deserve my apologies, IMO. My laughter you still get though.

Man oh man, Wil, you are so FREAKIN smart....but, who DOESN'T want to see innocent people die? And look at me, here I am wanting the National Guard to tell me it's my turn to go kill some people....oh man, I still have two freakin years until they even think about it!! I go to Basic Training in June and then AIT NEXT summer (because I'm still in HS) and then to school to learn to fly helicopters. Man oh man I want to catch Osama and turn him into a woman with no anesthetics and put him back in his country naked so all the men over there can beat him to death slowly and painfully like he deserves. And I would watch it and cheer and scream and wave flags. I'd make sure I got the final blow and I would make him look at the American Flag the whole time he was dying. *evil laugh* that whole scenario sounds pretty sick and twisted...but still nice!

DAMN....I meant to write who DOES want to see innocent people die...not who DOESN'T....

HAHAHAHA.....Andrew needs to move up a little bit into the 21st century. Soon enough there will be a woman president, even if it has to be me! And some day, a woman is going to come up with a better company than all of those damn computer companies that you are talking up just because a man made them. I go to school with someone like you. He has this weird inferiority complex to women. He said he is never ever going to join the military because he doesn't want to have to salute me. Sounds like you two would get along well!!! You sound like you are still stuck in the past when attitudes like yours were tolerated. Now you'll have women all over your ass if you are ever brave enough to say anything like that in public.
THANKS!

Will, your the best. I first saw you in "stand by me" and loved that movie and your character.I hadn't heard about you in a while,then I found this website.And I must say you do a great job with it.It's always interesting and I'm always checking it out!keep up the good work! BUT, I can't believe what I read when you talk about the war and "innocent civilians".I mean lets deal with reality!! in a war innocent people are going to die.war isn't pretty,clean or perfect but it is what we have to do!! I mean if you want to sit around with richard gere and sing and cry with the other hollywood liberals go ahead but it'll do no good.I thought you were different from the hollywood pack mentality of thinking,maybe you are.I'll keep reading your site cuz it's a cool site.BUT Wil, really think about what you are saying! you give no solutions,what should we do? that's what I'm saying with you peaceniks, bitch and whine for the enemy and give no solutions,just don't hurt the children. that's a nice line don't hurt the children I think clinton used it a few hundred times.clinton is the one who did nothing about bin laden,even after we knew he was behind the embassy bombings,and I suppose you probably backed clinton,right!! let's get REAL!! later wil

I have a question for all of you people who are posting things like "why make Bin Laden a martyr?" and "don't kill the innocent" and "how many more innocent people need to die" and all this other crap. How many of you are in the military? How many of you have ever BEEN in the military? How many of you know what it feels like to go to bed at night thinking "oh man, I just killed thousands of people that might not have been involved at all"? How many of you feel the guilt that these soldiers feel? How many of you were thousands and thousands of miles away, hell, in a different country, for Christmas without any of your family near you? How many of you have ever went to bed missing your husband or wife or children and knowing that you aren't going to see them for MONTHS to come and that, it is very possible for you to die and not see them again? Just answer me these questions and then you have the right to bitch. No, I have not been overseas before but I am not whining about innocent people dying and Osama Bin Laden being made a martyr. But, I AM in the military (I was "ME" that posted earlier) and while I am not full time right now, as soon as I can get my ass out of high school I am going to go full time and go overseas and protect you whiny asses who like to sit at your computers and complain instead of, like "indigosoul" said earlier, get of your asses and go to the recruiters office and see how the other half lives!

hmm well, i was going to make a long post replying to certain things that were said but after reading Mandy's posts I realized everything she said is exactly what i feel. I also wanted to comment that reading these comments I have noticed a few things...such as
the well educated smart people that can back up there opinions are:
artisic spirit
Mandy
KJB
christopher hearns
Chris
& others too, i can't remeber everyone

and i dont mean to get juvenille but frankly, Mad-Rid, Andrew Davis, & Clay you are entitled to your opinons but personally i think the epitome of the ignorant american fuck. and I really hope for that for the future of the world that neither of you three ever produce any offspring, you are exactly the type of people i think needs to be sterilized.
okay thats all i have to say, so maybe im slightly hypocritical, oh well :-)

^^amen^^

The Rebuttal Strikes Back

**I’m right and you were wrong.

Ok.. fark it... Its ground breaking because its a better plan than anything that’s on the table right now. And bless it all its about damn time we started moving away from fossil fuels. Bush and Co, hell, even Clinton and Co were pushing for electric vehicles. Umm where’s the electricity come from? Humm in current hybrid vehicles, it comes primarily from GAS or some other fossil fuel, and if its the type of vehicle you "plug in" every night, then it comes from a power plant, most likely burning coal. So yes, Kyoto IS ground breaking in a country that produces 25% of the worlds pollution from fossil fuels (look it up bub). Its about damn time we started moving on to something like hydrogen, who’s only byproduct is STEAM! (Applauds to Bush for even MENTIONING Fuel cells in his energy proposal). A person with character would see the bigger issue, not just their own perspective. This nation IS, whether we want it to be or not, the leader of the world. WE are the ones the world looks to for guidance in such policies. WE are the trend setters, WE are the policy makers, and WE above all have the ability to ENFORCE those policies. Why aren’t these other countries enforcing the treaty? Why should they when the big Uncle SAM gets to say "fark you, we're looking out for number one".
Yeah Andy... you totally owned me...

Copycat?? What the fudge?? Put the crack pipe down and step away dude!!

**were caused by, and started during, the Clinton Administration

Sarcasm aside, I’d honestly love to hear your views on this. As I said, It was far past time to get Clinton and Co out of office. The economy WAS indeed already going down when Clinton was going out, no question, though I can understand the initial hesitation by people to call it a recession. I don’t think it was bad enough at that point to call it a recession. Obviously the hardest hit to our economy the past year has been 9-11.
Now, look outside the US. Look at ALL the countries of the world. There’s not a country that’s not suffering, and I’d wager 90% of them are fairing a lot worse than we are. My point to this is that rather than helping these countries, the US (as of the Bush take over) has been more centralist, moving all of our interests (financially) to within our boarders. Why is this worth mentioning? Why is this important? Because, as much as the Anti-One world economy types would disagree, this is indeed a one-world economy.
(hypothetical) Japan takes a fall, the rest of the world goes with it, the domino effect in the works. Look back a few years ago when that computer factory in Japan (or was it Korea.. DOH) burned down. The computer industry alone took a massive hit for months worldwide. Now, lets look at the broader issue concerning this. Hunger. Famine. Drought and floods. China alone has lost over 1 million people this year from floods! The rest of the world is fairing no better. I'm not talking about 3rd world countries, I’m talking world leaders. Look at Russia, where they can barely keep bread on the grocery shelf because they are poor! Look at the luck the British have had the past couple years .. foot and mouth, etc. the list goes on. My point is that the US above any other nation has the power to lend a hand. And where has that hand been? reaching into it’s own pocket. Is Bush the sole one responsible, of course not! But he above all is the one CAPABLE of affecting change, and where has his focus been? If India falls into a depression, who’s it gonna hurt… India, probably not much else. If Japan, or another big country like it (god forbid the US) falls into depression, who’s it gonna hurt. The whole planet. Better to reinforce those legs than to let them drop out from under us, don’t you think?

**You must have been on the college program, because you didn’t learn a damned thing.

Who mentioned anything about college? What the fudge are you talking about? Avoiding the issue I presume in this case, tell me, what experience do you have with nuclear technology, whether it be the bomb itself or the technology to deliver it?
Opps none I see.. darn.
Sit down and come back to me when you grow up.

**The U.S. has never attempted to take over another country

ROFL
Tell that to all the Native Americans (post Revolutionary war) and the Mexicans (how do you think Uncle Willie got his house in California?)
Again, sit down.

**Granted the defense shield will not solve all problems at once; it will take care of a few of them.

Agreed, but again, not in the revolutionary way that Bush is trying to sell it on. Here’s why. A nuke has several properties to its detonation. (pay attention here... those college classes you referred to might help if your having trouble understanding-- I can go into the physics of all this if you like.) They don’t explode on impact like a “regular” air dropped bomb. Instead they detonate on a timer. (by the way none of this is classified). There are 3 effects of a nuclear detonation.
1) Obliteration from heat and concessive force.. this is obvious any schmuck knows this. Fire a nuke wipe out a city, wash, rinse, repeat.
2) Radiation.. again, Duh... fire a nuke, watch survivors of the above mentioned city die within months or even days. People in the surrounding state (depending on weather conditions, size of the nuke, and the size of the area we are talking about) die from cancer within months to decades.
3) (I love this one) Every computer in a 3000 mile radius stops working... no danger of radiation, no physical damage to the cities... Its called (as most have heard in one movie or another) EMP. Detonate a nuke a few hundred miles above the surface (far out of the range of this missile shield Bush is so up in arms about) and you wipe out ALL communications in the US. Fun hu? and here’s the even better part. It only takes **ONE** nuke to do it!!
Where’s that missile shield now, Sparky? Yes. A “shield” against incoming nukes is beneficial, no question. Better to destroy them before they get here. But see, you neglected to pay attention to my follow up argument in my 2nd post…
“I can guarantee, if a nuclear attack were to occur in the US, it would be in the fashion that they've been sporting on the news recently. The "dirty bomb" which is to say, a "regular" bomb, but with nuclear material mixed in. Or, of course, the good ol, home grown, full fledged nuke built right here in the good ol US of A with materials you get fresh off the Home Depot/Radio Shack shelf. I dealt with nukes and the methods to detect their launch/ progression and detonation for years. This shield is a gag by the administration and a reflection of their lack of concern about their actions. Example. It takes a sub launched missile SIX minutes, from launch, to detonation. SIX MINUTES!! That’s enough time to call the president from Norad in Colorado and tell him to place his head between his legs ... Right after he gets in his plane and fly’s off to Florida to read to some kids that is.”
One thing I forgot to mention in that, is that after the climax of the launch, the missile separates from the rocket. But see its not really a missile. It’s more like a 2 to 3 foot tall shell with a bomb inside it. That’s the nuke. That’s what Bush is talking about shooting down. A metal box, 2 feet wide and 3 feet tall free falling toward its target (yes, nukes free fall, whether they be plane dropped, sub launched or silo launched-- my physics class starts at 9AM on the south campus). Now, with that in mind, think back to the Gulf war. The Patriot Missile is a early version of this shield he’s trying to sell to congress and Russia. As effective as it was, it’s not in the same ballpark as what we would need to make such a shield practical. No, Bush simply has a new toy to play with, and a new stick to wave in front of his enemies and would-be allies whom he wants to antagonize.

Problem though, in our benefit or against is for history to decide if we ever go down that path, is that our missiles are the most accurate of any on the planet (again, strictly talking nukes.) Great for us... BUT. That also means that if Korea does happen to fire a nuke (or hell CHINA even) our general direction, and if it does HAPPEN to get enough altitude to reach the US during its free fall, the bomb targeted on Uncle Willies house-- hehe sorry Wil, I love ya and all but I couldn’t resist-- may just wind up in Seattle. Don’t believe me? Join space command and find out for yourself. They better have a LOT of those missile batteries up soon or Seattle may be a glass bowl (the way Bush is talking that is).

Yes, Russia and China fund these rogue states. BUT, considering the finances of both countries right now and the fact that their own people are just a few steps shy of revolt due to hunger and what not (hell Korea and China itself can barely keep its people in line right now what with the floods and droughts that have hit different parts of their country this year alone!) we don’t have much to worry about from them. Saber rattling at best.
Your right, Russia and China don’t have anything to fear from us. But they have a lot to fear from Mother Nature if the weather doesn’t change soon (COUGH KYOTO).
Anyone can sell or prevent the sale of anything if the numbers are fudged right. But in either case, Global Warming is a problem and Kyoto WOULD be a starting point, world wide (minus 3rd world that is, and lets face it, how much pollution are 3rd world countries responsible for anyway?) Look at the middle east. Yes their standards are lower than ours, but look at their output. Upgrade (clean) what they have (and in areas where they don't have anything, start using something other than fossil fuels! (Hydrogen) For every one factory in Iraq, Korea, or China you have 15 more in the US. Who needs to worry about it more? Us or them?
You’ve got to bear in mind with Kyoto, that the US is HUGE compared to most countries. Germany is barely the size of the state of Georgia!! France is not much larger, maybe the size of Texas. Of course they are going to fair easier!! But that’s where we, as the leader of the world, should be stepping in saying, this is now going to be the standard. Why aren’t we using hydrogen when we’ve had the means and the technology to disperse it safely for YEARS!!!

**The defense shield technology will allow us to protect ourselves against a large number of possibilities
Oh? like what? Do tell please? Nukes aside (I think I’ve shot that down sufficiently)

**The 9-11 attacks could have been a lot less catastrophic had we already had this technology.
We already have surface to air missiles capable of shooting down a jumbo jetliner. Where was it on 9-11? And how much better is this Missile shield going to fair against and Air Craft than a typical S-A Missile?

**this technology could have been used to take out the planes before they got anywhere near the pentagon or the trade center
Could-a would-a should-a, hind sight is 20 20. No we wouldn’t have shot them down pre 9-11, you’re right there. But again, we ALREADY have surface to air missiles capable of shooting down jetliners. Why do we need to scrap a treaty (severely pissing off more than just Russia, but most of our Allies in NATO AND THE UN) to develop a new one that does the same thing as what we already. You’re not going to win the Missile Shield argument.

**An attack wouldn’t come directly from Russia or China, but it could very well come from say North Korea, funded and supported by China.
Agreed... in about 10 years, when/if they can get their populace firmly under control again, those pesky floods and all driving people to revolt. Oh, and there’s the finances to build/ or even buy the missiles that actually have the range to hit us. Nope no points here. What college were we talking about?

**Land attack
(errrr) this is a tough one. If there was a land attack against us, it would start either in Canada/Alaska (not withstanding the historical Asian-European scenario), or Seattle. And let me point out that not even China has the resources to launch an assault of the magnitude it would take to make such an attack feasible, or worth while. I’m talking from sea based assault ships to air ships to paradrop. I'll let you in on a not so secret secret. Our Sat based radar’s make up for our ground based radar’s limitations. So that whole thing about flying in "under their radar" simply does not exist in this country or any other. Period. We'd see them 2000 miles away and they'd be shot out of the sky’s (paradrop scenario). Sea assault, China and Russia together MIGHT have enough ships to get enough troops on our soil to do some hefty damage, no doubt, but alone, neither one could even finance such a feat. The people in Russia’s Space Administration get paid 1000 a YEAR compared to our 60,000 (MINIMUM). You think they can finance the kind of assault your talking about? And then there’s the whole “take time to build up the forces for the assault”. Remember how long it took US to launch our attack against Iraq?

**The border needs to be locked down
The missile shield comes into this where?? Oh, by the way, you’re NATIVE American, right?
Jordan fades back, SWOOSH!

**Small Pox
http://www.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/11/28/smallpox.vaccine/index.html
Why prepare for it if only US and our ALLIES (USA and RUSSIA are the ONLY 2 countries to maintain Smallpox) have it. What does that say about our administration-- are "we" planning to use it on ourselves (the virus that is)? Why would Russia use it on us? Better yet, Why would they SELL IT to people they KNOW are going to use it on us??? DOH!

**Could it possibly be that your beef is having to work and earn what others have?
One word. ENRON

**Al Gore than was born with a silver spoon in his mouth
(wanted to avoid the My candidate- your candidate thing but here goes) Umm where do you think Georgie got his money to buy the baseball team?... or his Oil Company? Jordan going from downtown! (By the way, I didn’t vote for Gore either, as I’ve been saying, it was high time we got the Clinton regime out of there).

**Corporate America is cutthroat, companies are forced to get as much as they can from as little as possible
One word. ENRON

**You say that a lot of Bush’s cabinet members had business dealings with him in the past. So what?
One word. ENRON

**If you don’t understand why Iraq is on the radar then you are completely out of it
No contest why Iraq or any of the other nations are on the hit list. My point is, you don’t go picking a fight with half the neighborhood when you are recovering from a broken arm. We did a bang up job in Afghanistan removing the taliban. Great. Let’s not piss off our allies any more than they already have been the past year.
Strong arming-- Kyoto.. Blair himself was flabbergasted when Bush said no. Who in the world supports us better than Brittan??? Never mind Japans response! And then we've got the Missile shield thing with Putin (or what ever his name is). 2 black eyes to 2 of our closest supporters over seas.
We are the international leader! WE set the standards by which every other country aspires to! We expect it of our troops, reaching higher standards, meeting higher goals. So why is our president going and almost literally picking fights?

You want to know the reason for 9-11, why we were earlier talking about the "collateral damage" in Afghanistan, look at 2 places. The crazy man in the turban, and the crazy man in the White House.

Oh, and on a side note, Allison, God Bless you :)

Jamie, a conversation with a few Vietnam vets wouldn't be the worst thing in the world for you. Military organizations the world over love young men like you because you're too young and dumb to think for yourself. Actually I take that back. You do actually think but the thoughts are limited due to your young age and experience It's quite simple to wind you up and send you off.

A man, not a country attacked us.

Kman

I find it pretty ironical to hear somebody here say that the USA have "independant press" as compared to Afghanistan.

Censorship and control might not be obvious, but here (Switzerland, a country no more free than any other) we regularly comment on how biased and indoctrinating american press is (specially regarding the afghanistan issues).

I'd love to find the source I got this from, but I do recall hearing about how american journalists in Afghanistan were censored and frustrated that they could not write about what was *really* happening over there.

Andrew Davis:

You have quoted one groups opinion on Kyoto and the environment. I am a geochemist I have looked at many of the arguments. I agree that "global warming" (I personaly hate that term) has not been conclusively proven but it has not been disproven either. Most of the evidence points towards global warming as happening and that it is caused by human actions. Whether I am right or you are right would you rather wait until we are sure (and by that time we're probably screwed) or do something that my be difficult but might save us in the future. It seems that you have no difficulty acting now even if it costs a lot of money (re: war on terrorism) so why do you procrastinate with the environment. More people (even Americans) will die if "global warming" is right.

You know, someone posted an article on a Star Trek MUSH, and here I am :). Odd, that.

In any case, I agree with your statements here. I do have one clarification to make which, if it has already been mentioned here, I apologize for the repetition. You can bet anything you like, and I would support you, that Congress would declare war in a heartbeat -- if we had a target. We are not fighting a single government, that's the problem. Traditional wars have been against either other governments or rebels/et. al within your own.

Thought I'd mention that :).

Ta ta, great site!

-- CB

Aren't the Taliban and Al Quida targrets enough for the US congress to declare it a formal war back when 9/11 happened? Lets all look up the definition of war in the dictionary. The US isn't dropping bombs and settle some troops in just to visit and say "hello...you have a nice country...lets do lunch."

Mike Wiffen, it's not a matter of whether global warming exists or not. The Kyoto treaty wasn't going to do anything to solve that problem, it has nothing to do with "helping the environment". The treaty gives the U.N. power over us with regard to energy. It gives them the power to force us to use less energy. We would essentially be handing over our economy... the Bush admin is coming up with a bill to address the "global warming" issue, and it doesn't involve giving the U.N., or anybody else, power over us.

With regard to "global warming", there is no real evidence to support it, which is why those 18,000 scientists banded together. The other day I was surfing around an came across TLC or Discovery and some guy was talking about a trip to Mars. He explains how the problem is that Mars is too cold, yada, yada, and that what we should do is heat up the planet. He then asked "How do we do that?", and he then aswers by saying "We do the same thing we're doing here, pollute the environment". He says we should send over some "pollution makers", basically just big damned engines that crank out smoke, and that this will heat up the planet. LOL. I then surfed to another channel and saw a guy taking ice samples in Antartica. According to him, through looking at the "history of the earth" using the ice samples he predicts that we're heading towards another ice age. Using the ice samples he can supposedly get everything from temperature to air composition readings from any time in our history, using these ice samples. Here is a classic example of two "scientists" saying the exact opposite.

Also, Mike, just so you don't fee left out, I'll respond to your, lol, post later. Gotta work for now.

Jamie, you are catching the tail end of a conversation and letting your personal inferiority complex get in the way. My attitude is not what you're thinking it is.

I do not look down on women, I've run into lots of really smart women that are just as good as any guy in their profession. The debate is over the statement "The world would be a better place if women were in charge of everything". That's what I'm arguing against.

I've got a friend called Christna who is Goth but I'm not but it does'nt realy bother me.The point is all she talks about is Bin laden and how she is going to marry him which pisses me off

Andrew

We may well be wrong about global warming, if we are then what is the worst that can happen? We save a few fuel bills. A lot of industry becomes more efficent and saves money. If we are right whats the effect of ingnoring the problem? Floods, draught, storms, rising seas, ice caps melting. These things are already happening so the odds are...? If are worried what the Kayoto agreement will do to your economy think what a flood of the mississipy river every year will do. It is the way that America deals with these issues that points to why large parts of the world hates it.

Think not what the world can do for you but what you can do for the world.

Thank you, Jamie for pointing out the obvious about Andrew's rant. I don't think that anti-female sentiment is very fitting or even appropriate to the topic under discussion. I don't need to watch a whole gender being slammed - guess I will leave this discussion to others here and wait and see what the next topic will be.

Leno,

You are missing my whole poing. First let me say that I believe in not fixing something unless it's broken. There flat out isn't any real evidence that supports the global warming theory, at all. I do a lot of work in the energy industry, I know what all the arguments are.

My father is actually a Mechanical Engineer from Texas A&M. In doing a lot of his graduate work he conducted a lot of tests at A&M's Energy Systems Laboratory, which is one of the worlds leading centers for research in this area. I've gotten the skinny from him, and professors at the university, these people are THE experts in this field. The global warming theory doesn't even have enough weight to be called a theory, it's a lie.

Regardless I'm ALL for saving energy and using less fuel. Actully, I have worked on a lot of software that helps people save money and reduce their fuel consumption whether it be electricity, nat gas, or whatever. I'm all about energy efficiency.

Power is the lifeblood of everything we do in this country. Forcing companies to reduce their power consumption is a very serious thing, you're getting into VERY sensitive ground that effects a lot of people. You think our economy is bad now, lol, see what it's like when the government starts telling companies to use x% less power.

Is it worth risking all that on the off chance that this evidence-less *theory* might be right? Maybe we should all stop drinking soads because cafeeine might cause cancer? There is no evidence.

And the best part is that Kyoto has nothing to do with helping the environment. It is about money and power, that is all. Actually if you look into the heart of any of these environmental groups you'll find the same thing. Sure there are a few real nutty tree huggers here and there, but the meat of the organizations are run by people like Al Gore. They are nothing more than politicians. Instead of getting a real job and producing something they become an environmentalist, and have their way paid for by corporate america and our tax dollars. Companies get tax benefits from giving to environmental causes, and at the same time get P.R. befits by advertising that they support the environment. It's a big scam job from beginning to end, all cleverly designed to separate the hard workers from their money. But Kyoto itself goes a step further than that, it actually gives the U.N. and rogue nations a say in how much power we are allowed to use, giving them control of the pupet strings tied to our economy. That is just plain stupid. Even the countries that were dumb enough to ratify the treaty haven't taken the next step of enforcing it, which is the part that supposed to *help* the environment.

Even with all that in mind the Bush Administration is STILL creating a bill to help reduce energy use in the U.S.A. But the control will be in our hands, not that of forein nations. So you are still getting the contingency plan that you're after.

Knowing what I know about the arguments I personally would just give the bird to the environmental crowd... but Bush is still being "open" to their theory and doing something about it.

booger - what about the tens of thousands who have died from our very deliberate bombing of a sudanese pharmacutical plant? im sure similar things are happening now just as they did with kosovo. if you want to believe that we dont purposefuly target civilians go ahead, but its pretty naive.

I'm NOT saying this to say what they did to u.s. civillians was any less horrible or wrong...just that our country is no more innocent than any other.

Hey Wil,

This is the first time I'm posting anything on your site, but it's something I'm rather passionate about. I'm Canadian, so anyone who disagrees can use that against me ;)

I agree with you 100%. The thing that bothers me most, however...is thinking about what it's like from the perspective of a father who loses his wife and children to 'collateral damage' and who he's going to blame for his family being dead...and what that can lead to, because it seems to me that that's how terrorism gets it's 'soldiers'

Do you think that the peaceful Afghan shop keeper gives a damn about the US's war on Terrorism as he grieves his family? No, he's just going to know that the US bombed his country and killed his family.

It's almost like a no-win situation...

Anyway, just wanted to share that, and to say that I'm a big fan of yours Wil, and the site. I always liked ya on TNG :)

Jay

Rachel, it's really silly to compare our war against terrorism to the Monica Missiles. The example you presented a great one, and I agree with you, but it has no place in the current discussion.

Andrew Davis

The ice cores your talking about are a total of a few centimeters covering about a century. They give a rough idea at best. The theory that we are going into another ice age is that if we follow the past progression of ice ages we should be in one soon. However the temperatures seem to be rising not falling as would probably be necessary for an ice age to form. (There is a theory that glaciation can be caused by increasing temperature but it is deemed HIGHLY unlikely). How can you say there is no evidence. I live in Canada 20 years ago we would be lucky to get 20 days above freezing between the beginning of Jan and the end of Feb. This year we have been above freezing more than below and we're only in the middle of Feb. I think observation is valid evidence.

The fact that the White House claims to be working on something does not mean they actually will do something. Politicians will tell people what they want to hear even if they have no intention of doing this. This is true of all politicians, not just american. Don't just listen and accept, everyone must listen, think, criticize and accept or reject.

Wil I do not think you understand what your talking about in the larger sense of warfare and world politics. As someone who has fought and killed enemies of the Republic let me put it in some perspective for you.

When you send members of the armed forces out on the world you do it knowing fully well that we are the last line of reasoning without of course useing nuclear weapons. The reasons you stated above are honest ideals of someone who never had to kill someone or be killed. Taken to the exteme the united states would be nothing more then a nation like france. A nation that has a bark yet no bite because it does not want to endanger its pretty buildings.

War is hell for good reasons. It means killing those by accident who just got in the way of the bullets. While you talked about the war in the middle east I have a better example for you. Nazi Germany elected Adolf Hitler with 33% of the german people voting for him. Did those 66% or even that 33% deserve to die by american or english bombs falling on their houses while holding their children? Did they deserve to die because they lived too close to a factory that made weapons of war? No however what would have the world looked like without us getting involved? A new germany that included all of europe and most of russia? How many more jews would have hitler killed? Who would have been next on his list? Catholics? Muslems? People with green eyes? The united states and europe let hitler take small european nations one after another while the larger nations prayed he would be happy with them. Democrats and Republicans in the house and senate BOTH did not want to get involved even when most of europe was at war. How many more millions of innocent people would have been saved if we got involved when hitler made his first move?

Osama Bin Ladin wants to create a united arab middle east like hitler wanted to create a united europe under his heel. We ignored the problem for far too long and should have acted sooner. People might scoff at him but we also scoffed at hitler when he first took over a divided poor nation and look what he did. Bin Ladin will use any excuse to finish his goals. Israel, Starving children in Iraq or anything that will help him reach his goal of a pure islamic state.

Those people did not deserve to die but how many more would have died in soccer arenas across the middle east if we did not act? Most of the time life is a choice between the worst of two evils. The only people who do not think so are insulated from the harsh realities of life.

Pure naked violence has solved more of the worlds problems then talking ever has and it is moral to use violence when the time is right and that time is now.

Jamie, you signed up. You knew what you were getting into. Other people on this page are not in or joining the armed forces. You take on the responsibility when you sign up. Don't lecture me about how I feel, or tell me that my feelings are wrong because you don't agree. I have an opinion and I WILL express my absolute horror at merciless slaughter. You call it what you will, I'll call it what I will. Agree to disagree, but don't disrespect my thoughts cuz they differ.

Tiana

Andrew

**You think our economy is bad now, lol, see what it's like when the government starts telling companies to use x% less power.

Why aren't we there now? You mentioned that Kyoto would (in 2010) only reduce emissions a sum of 30%.
ALREADY produces more than any other country in the world. That includes RUSSIA, CHINA, BRITTAIN, hell virtually the entire EU combind produces less pollution than we do! We produce 1/4 of all pollution world wide! So 30% is HUGE! And recall that bit i mentioned about German -the size of Georgia, France the size of Texas, the whole of Brittian only the size of Florida?? Well of course they have less to worry about. As you say.. "DUH"
You're right, the UN shouldn't have to step in to guide us on this. WE SHOULD BE GUIDING THE UN!!! WE SHOULD ALREADY BE SETTING THIS STANDARD!! But no... better to let Enron execs keep funneling money into thier pockets than to give them an incentive to come up with new, CLEAN energy.
I'll tell you flat out, who ever convinced you that Global Warming was a "lie" is on crack, and so are you quite frankly. But lets put that aside for the moment. Lets look at the kids in school (elementry, middle and high) that have to stand outside waiting on their buses, which are spouting out ungodly ammounts of noxious gas right in front of them. How many teachers, with those kids outside making sure everyone catches their bus, are getting sick because of this. Do you have kids in school? Well, i dont have kids, but my youger brothers are 13 and 10. I dont want them around that. How bout you Wil? Anyone? Ask your kids teachers how they feel about having to stand out there with those buses engines running. I remember, back in the day, when i was in middle school hearing this teacher or that complain about it. Theres more kids going to school now, meaning even more buses than when i went. The school i went to graduated 400 the year i left. They graduated almost 1000 this past year... And this is not the inner city. This is the OPEN AND DEVELOPING SUBURB!

Its not just a matter of saving energy, its a matter of finding new sources. I'm not talking about drilling for more oil. One day the oil, coal, natural gas will all run out, Global Warming or not. And your definately right that power is the life blood of this clountry. So doesnt it make sense to find new sources of power before our current ones run out? Bush (and you apparently) want to spout that we need to rely less on foreign oil, HERE HERE! but why do we rely on oil, coal, natural gas, or anything else that pollutes at all!! We have the technology, the resources and the money to use other means!!! But noooooo its better to keep my 10 and 13 year old brothers coughing while getting out of school and puttin money into the pockets of Bush life longs friends in the Oil industry.
ENRON ENRON ENRON.

Anyone see the comments from the congress member prosiding over the investigation? "Skilling came in and actually talked to us, he didn't take the 5th, but as soon as he started talking he lost all credibility."
I quote this for a reason. I watched the congress members questioning Skilling. The man was laughable at best. A CEO who knew nothing, essentally, about his company. And this man described HIMSELF and a "HANDS ON CONTROL FREAK"!
And lets look at some of the other VIPS... people putting in $10,000 to buy stocks in these bogus side companies they created (Jedi?? Obi Industries?? Tons more!) and getting a return of 1 MILLION within 3 months!!! And the little guy, the lowly pee on employee, getting thier life savings lost in the flames (flash back to your "Corprate America is cut throat" and, more recently your "It's a big scam job from beginning to end, all cleverly designed to separate the hard workers from their money" comment). THIS IS FACT!! THIS IS WHAT ENRON DID!! THIS my friends is Corporate America, and EXACTLY what BUSH stands for.

How does Kyoto give the UN and "rogue nations" power over us? The same way that any other treaty does. By this I mean that if we break a treaty, or exit without following the terms, then we can have sanctions against us. This is the reason Bush cannot just build his missile definse. He must abide by the stipulations of the agreement or face sanctions from the UN. This is a part of ANY treaty, NOT JUST KYOTO!! So again, you get no points here. The puppet strigs you refer to come into play ONLY if we do not meet the terms of the agreement, or exit it. Korea can not stand up and say "This year you can only produce X% of these gases". No my friend, my dear mislead Andrew. What it means is that if the US fails to meet the terms of the agreement THEN Korea can stand up and say "you failed to meet this agreement, we suggest you straigten up or we place an 10% higher tax on your exports." See Andrew, the comments your making about giving power over our nation to others is completely bogus. Its a scare tactic used well by many a politician. Heh, look and what they did with Medicare (even if the program is farked beyond reason.)

I dont consider Bush's plan better mainly because instead od FOCUSING on exploring alternative energies, its promoting (more) the building and drilling of new oil sites. No, its pretty obvious where Bushs intentions are here.

By the way, as a general statement to all. Does anyone remember when i think it was CNN or FOX or maybe even CNBC were broadcasting it as not "Americas war on Terror" but instead "America Strikes Back". (FLASH --- Empire Strikes Back)
Americas policies are not only the cause but at the very center of why this attack occured. Go back and re-read what Mark said (Posted by: Mark on February 9, 2002 04:45 PM)

Have you been over seas Andy? I have. Theres a reason the US is hated.

And educating enemies? Yeah, that's really going to screw things up. That's like trying to explain to the bully why hitting you is a bad thing. LOL.
Andrew:

You: Unless you can put him on the floor your lunch money will be gone that day, and maybe the next, and the next...

Sure, so you kick his ass, and THEN you educate him. What would you say the proportion is of well-educated men who resort to physical violence compared to those with little or no education?

You: A world disarmament would be really stupid, and flat out will just never happen.

Of course it's not going to happen any time soo, but why would it be really stupid?

You: And don't tell me that it's because they were "repressed". If they were as you claim, and have the solution to all our problems...

Ok, the reason is that men and women have evolved differently. Men are the more aggressive, hunter, protector members of the tribe, whereas women are the social uniters. My point is that NOW that the consequences of division are POTENTIALLY so catastrophic, more power might be better concentrated in the hands of the social uniters, rather than the aggressors.

And it really confuses me why some women get all threatened at any sort of gender conversations. Men and women are DIFFERENT. They are not THE SAME. It is not a question of EQUALITY. Their basic human rights should be equal (of course!) but othewise, to think they are the same is naive and is a disservice to both sexes.

It is insensitive and wrong to the families of victims of Sept 11th to question the US lead mission to rid the world of terrorism. More people died on Sept 11th than at Pearl Harbour in World War 2. How many more attacks like this does it take for you assholes to get your head out of your asses and actually fucking do something to stop it, and bring those responsible to justice. These whack jobs like Bin Laden, wouldn't think twice about slitting your throat. They want and have sought after Nuclear, & Biological weapons. If they had them, they would use them to nuke and spread anthrax all over your ass. The reason you feel safe now and bitch about trivial bullshit is because people like balls like the President are actually fucking do something to stop, prevent, and eradicate this terrorism. Yeah innocent civilians are dying and thats not right. We aren't targeting innocent civilians like the terrorists did. And let's not forget or blow off the people that died on September 11th. The President has a high approval rating now due to this campaign, and i'm glad that most level headed americans think so and don't agree with you uncompassionate shitheads.

ok, there's a few people I need to respond to.
KMAN - 1: I am NOT a male! I am a 17 year old female. However, thank you for giving me your opinion. But, it wasn't really relavent. You don't know me. If you did, you'd know that I am a very intelligent person. If you've ever taken the ASVAB you'd know that a QT score of 108 is excellent which is what I got. Not bragging just letting you know that you have NO clue what you are talking about telling me I am not smart or whatever the hell you said. I joined the Army of my own accord, not just because people told me I should so they could "wind me up and send me off" as you say. Also, I'm smart enough not to complain how this country is being run without trying to do something about it!
Next order of business.
ANDREW - Sorry about the out of place comment. However, it still fits with the pompous attitude you had in your post. Or seemed to have I should say.
And last but surely not least....
TIANA - It's people like me that take on the responsibility to go over and defend your right to state your erroneous views. Besides, I wasn't lecturing and I wasn't complaining about joining the military. I was telling the people who are whining about "merciless slaughter" that it isn't merciless slaughter or collateral damage or what have you, it's not like it's done on purpose. When our troops kill people, they pay for it dearly. Whether it be emotionally or what.
Anyway, you are right, you ARE entitled to your opinions, as am I. So, you shouldn't be lecturing ME about having MY opinions. Thanks anyway!

Well, given the obvious love in the above post....

I fear I'm going to have to drop a dose of rationality into the discussion.

Agreed. Something needs to be done about Bin Ladin and al'Qaida, and every other terrorist group out there.

But not because of September 11th.

September 11th is only the wake-up call to the years of neglect by the american government (and the West Europeans, incidentally--they've had their share of terrorist attacks, as well). September 11th is not a reason to inflict genocide upon all Arabs and Asians. September 11th is most certainly not just cause to start bombing the snot out of thousands of Afghans or Iraqis or ANY national group.

The terrorists in al'Qaida, for example, come from a number of nations. In every one of those countries, they are a miniscule minority--a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent. Why?

Obviously, because despite the widespread dislike for america and americans, the vast majority of people throughout the world are not willing to join battle against america. Call it laziness, call it fear, call it common sense--despite the reasoning behind it, the fact remains that even before September 11th and the american response afterward, al'Qaida and other anti-american terrorist groups had very little popular support.

"But they killed lots of americans!" you scream. "They must DIE!" "To even question the government after such a tragedy is unpatriotic, is unfair to the memories of the dead and their families, and is just plain WRONG!"

Right. Sure. Whatever you say, because the louder you scream, the more right you *must* be. That's how it works!

Common sense has nothing to do with it. Ignore that the more civilians are injured by american bombs, the more popular support anti-american terrorist groups will receive. Ignore that the likelihood of killing a civilian in a bombing is many times that of actually killing a terrorist.

Yeah. Right.

Incidentally, Re: anthrax, biological weapons, etc.... It has recently been reported that the strain of anthrax used in the american terrorist attacks was from an american military facility. Guess this one can't be pinned on foreign terrorists.

And since we've obviously got a stockpile of biological weapons to complement our nuclear stockpile, how much better than the terrorists are we?

Jamie,

In defense of KMAN, I don't believe he was slighting your intelligence. When you're young and inexperienced in the way the world works (by no means a bad thing!), it's easy to be manipulated. You remember when you were really you and your mom told you not to make that face because your face might freeze that way? You didn't know it wouldn't, so she used that to make you do what she wanted. The same is true when you're young and idealistic about the way the world works. People will try to take advantage of that, Uncle Sam included. It doesn't mean that you're stupid (believe me, plenty of geniuses have less than your normal dose of common sense), just not prepared to doubt enough the motivations of others.

Well said Chris. I wasn't going to respond...after all, what can you really say to someone who'll quote a score on some test as proof of their intelligence? That score will mean exactly DICK when the first few bullets go whizzing by her head.

Jamie, there's a good chance we'll see you on 60 Minutes a few years down the road blaming Uncle Sam for misleading you and not owning up to whatever health problems you've developed after fighting on his behalf, more than likely not to defend this country but further our monetary interest around the world. On 9/11 the folks that could've really defended this country in it's time of need worked at airport security. Care to take that exam?

Female or male you STILL need to seek out some vets, WWII on up and sit in front of them and say, "Tell me what you know" and then SHUT UP and LISTEN.

K

Wow, ok, I have a lot of people to respond to.

------------

First, Jamie. I really liked your last post, props. Preach on! I think both of us misunderstood each other. I think if this were a face to face we'd get along great. Maybe we'll run into each other some day in the service, keep the faith strong.

------------

Second, to all the ticked off women that are trying to tag me as some kind of woman beater. This discussion was originally about civilian casulties, but it has since spun off into several different discussions. If you read back you'll find that Chris and I had a huge disagreement, but then after further discussion came to an agreement. It's hard to tell if it was a 100% agreement, but we certainly both ended up in common ground.

After reaching this agreement he made the statement that "We'd all be better of if women ran everything". Now unless you're brain dead that is a gender biased statement against men. I totally disagree with it. In countering that argument I have to run on women a little, that's just the way arguments work. He's running on guys (is Chris a girl?), so I have to push back in the opposite direction.

By simply reading a snip of some of the things I've said it's very easy for someone to get the impression that I'm anti-women, and that I think their place is in the kitchen. That is 100% false.

However there are large differences between men and women, nobody can deny this. Some of you out there may not like this, for whatever reason, but that's just the way things are. This does not mean that one is better than the other, just that they're different. There are some things that women do better than men, and other things that men do better than women.

In my 19 years of existence I certainly haven't learned and seen it all, but after graduating from high school at an early age (14) and starting a software company I've had the good fortune of going a lot of places and experiencing a lot of different things in different environments. As a result of these experiences I've formulated opinions, very strong ones, on certain things. Until I have more experiences (gather more data) my opinions will remain as they are. If you think I'm igorant in certain areas, don't hate me and yell, educate me.

----------

Now on to mike, the anti-american enviro nazi.

A little tip, expand your vocabulary to include more than 4 letter words, you sound like some idiot from the hood, certainly not like a current or former soldier of the U.S. Armed Forces. Calm down, take a breath, and think things out a little.

On to the issue at hand. Let me say up front that you are going to lose this conversation, and lose it bad. I work in the energy industry, I have contact with world leading experts and researchers in the energy industry, and while I don’t know everything, I know enough to know that you’re full of it.

You say that the Kyoto Tready is "ground breaking" because it’s a better plan than anything that’s on the table right now?

First of all what kind of thinking is that? If the only proposal on the table involves jumping off a bridge do you call it "ground breaking" and jump? You seem to really think you've got all this figured out so well. You know nothing about the Kyoto Treaty, or the environment.

You mentioned Clinton and Gore, did you know that your boy’s Clinton and Gore didn’t even attempt to get the Kyoto treaty passed. Their own ignorant energy experts even said that it was a bad plan. And the senate voted against it 95-0. Do you understand what that means? That means that EVERYONE, conservatives, and enviro nazis like yourself, voted against it. Shouldn't even THAT say something to you? If the socialist democrats won't vote for it then it must be really bad!

And the countries that have ratified it have yet to enforce it. So while they’ve signed the paper none of them have done anything past that. If it’s such a problem, and since you say they generate the other 75%, shouldn’t their efforts do more than ours? Does that mean they’re visionaries, but also spineless worms without the fortitude to do anything without us doing it first? Is that what you said? LOL. And BTW: China didn't ratify it, they stayed totally away from it. As bad as China is they're not stupid, the leaders of that country will not allow themselves to lose power.

You say "It’s about time we started moving away from fossil fuels."

Well first of all we're not. That is not happening at all, and there is no reason to do so. There will not be a major shift in how we generate power until Cold Fusion exists, or the prices of Fuel Cells comes down a LOT. Right now fuel cells exist, and are more efficient, meaning that they use less fuel and put out less carbon dioxide for the same energy output. But there are two big problems with them. They are insanely expensive, and they are huge. A fuel cell for your house would be about the size of a car. Replacing an entire coal generation facility with fuel cell technology would take 2-3 times as much space. Maybe more. And even with that it costs a LOT more. And I don't mean it costs money upfront to buy one... even though they use less fuel it costs more money to get the same amount of power as traditional power generation because the technology requires a lot of maintenance. It's simply too expensive at this point.

A lot is being done to make fuel cells better. To reduce maintenance, cut the size, and drop the costs, but they won't be a real solution for 5-10 years.

Regarding other technologies such as wind, solar, and hydroelectric. They are a joke, extremely inefficient. Which is why they account for approx. 10% of our power plant energy supply. The cheapest and cleanest power at this point is nuclear, with coal coming in a close second.

You say our country generates 25% of the world’s pollution?

Ok, that is an outright lie. First of all there is no evidence that what you call “pollution” is bad for the environment, but just for fun let’s pretend that it is for a sec.

There were large quantities of carbon dioxide (and methane and water vapor) in the atmosphere – mostly from volcano eruptions – long before there were any living things on this planet, much less humans.

Water vapor in the air is much the more powerful greenhouse gas and SUVs do also emit water vapor. Carbon dioxide amounts to only about .035 percent of the air by volume (methane, another greenhouse gas, only amounts to about .0002 percent) whereas water vapor concentrations can be up to four percent – 10 to 100 times that of carbon dioxide.

Every time a volcano erupts it spits out more “pollution” (as you put it) than humanity has during its entire existence by several times. Do you think we should try and cover all the volcanoes with rubber maid lids? LOL

The amount of "pollution" that we put in the air is insignificant. As Bill Steigerwald put it in a column I read “If you think global warming is a serious planetary-crisis-in-the-making, wait till another Krakatoa volcano explodes with the power of 40 Mount St. Helens and puts the Northern Hemisphere under cloudy skies – for 18 straight months.”

You say a person with character would see the bigger issue? What bigger issue? And what does character have to do with being smart, or taking measures to prevent a possible problem in the future? Nothing. As someone that claims to have served in the armed forces I would think that you’d know what character means.

And I think I should also point out that what you’re accusing Bush of with Kyoto, is exactly what you’re doing with the Defense Shield. When you’re looking up the word ‘character’ be sure to lookup ‘hypocrite’ and ‘short-sighted’ as well.

For all these reasons 18,000 scientists have petitioned together against the enviro nazi crowd. Tell us Mike, what is your expertise? Do you know more than these 18,000 scientists?

And just before we continue, we are not at risk of running out of fuels. We have a fairly decent sized amount of oil left (50 years), and know of what is thought to be almost endless amounts of additional oil in other areas yet to be drilled. And even if we do run out of oil there is enough coal in just our country to sustain us for hundreds of years. In that time we should be able to make something else, like Cold Fusion, work. And just in case you didn't know, coal can be processed into crude oil... so it's just like having more oil.

With all that aside lets just look at the Kyoto Treaty itself. It doesn't solve the non-existent problem that you speak of, it hands power over to the U.N. Only an Anti-American would be for something like this. Are you an Anti-American Mike? I think you are.

Examining the enviro nazi movement as a whole you'll find that they do nothing to help the environment, but a lot to take freedom away from americans, empower themselves, harm capitalism, and line their pockets at the same time.

By mentioning Enron you made us all aware of your real intent.

I don't know a whole lot about what's happened with Enron, nobody does... it's a lot of really hyped talk right now. Nobody will know the truth until all the dust settles. Regardless what does Enron have to do in a discussion about terrorism, or the validity of the global warming theory and ills of ratifying the Kyoto Treaty? Absolutely nothing. You keep bringing things like this up because that's what you're after. You must have to release an incredible amount of energy to not talk about how much you hate capitalism and freedom.

I really feel sorry for people like you. How miserable and bitter your life must be. But at the same time I'm very afraid of your persistence and non-stop efforts to enslave all of us with your socialistic ideals.

You're right that Enron might have been run by some really bad people, that may be very likely, I don't know. Regardless what does it have to do with Bush? I have ties to the energy industry, I even have the numbers of some utility CEOs and highup executives in my phone register, does that mean I'm also responsible? You know it doesn't, and you don't care. You're simply vehemently trying to push your agenda, which is socialism. If so they're certainly not the only ones. You also failed to mention the Global Crossing ties of your socialist buddies, yet it was the 3rd largest bankrupcy in history. And you don't hear a whole lot about it on TV, not a suprise with our media. If anything illegal was done at Enron, or GC, those responsible should be properly punished for it. Which means jail time.

Capitalism and Corporate America are not the enemy. It is was made America the power that it is. Every nation that has gotten just a sniff of it has benefited as a result. Just look at North Korea vs. South Korea.

The *supposed* problems you rant about with regard to energy are all problems that would solve themselves if you'd simply get your hands off of everyone's throat. Instead of helping your efforts put such a tight rope around everything that we can't move. Energy companies can't move an inch because of you people. Look at what happened in California.

Technological advancements are the result of steady competition. It creates the will nescessary to advance past the next guy.

But in the end I don't think you care. I know your movement doesn't care, and while you might be one of the good-natured few, I don't think so. You are not about progression, you are about yourself. And that's what all this really boils down to.

KMAN, your posts are about the most short-sighted and ignorant here.

How many times does it have to be said? Maybe you should read my history lesson, or look it up on your own... whatever the method, you should learn a little more before opening your mouth.

We were not attacked by a man, but by a rogue army. Technically we were attacked by Afghanistan because the Taliban was the government in control at the time. However because of the totally screwed up state of their country, being in a civil war, we recognized that not everyone in the country is symathetic to the Taliban. As such we are trying to help sort out the mess instead of slaughtering everyone. For our protection, and theirs.

We did not invade their country and just start thugging ourselves around. We are aiding, how many times does it have to be said, AIDING, the Northern Alliance. They have about 10x as many troops as us doing fighting. We only have a few hundred guys over there doing shooting. They are all special operations groups, which don't engage in massive forward-based attacks, that's what the regular Army and Marines do. In that terrain it would be the army.

Send over scholars and educators? LOL. That's so dumb I'm not sure how to respond to it. Why don't you just do a little dance in a purple barney suit for us, it would make about as much sense. I say we let people like you give that a run and then gladly add you to DarwinAwards.com afterwards.

Send over scholars, lol, with those pointy little shoes and faggoty pants too I suppose. LOL

Oh, and KMAN. I don't know how many vets you know, but all the ones I know would like to kick your ass.

Those being one grandfater from WW2 (B17 Bomber Pilot and good friend of Eugene B. Sledge, a legend that served during WW2 and wrote a book about his experices at Peleliu and Okinawa. His book his titled "With the Old Breed"), another gradfather that served in Korea (Grunt Enlisted Truck Diver on the front lines), Great Uncle in Korea and Vietnam (Retired Col.), Another Great Uncle in Korea (was one of the "chosin few" that survived the Chosin Reservoir in Korea in 1950), another Great Uncle during WW2 (served on a battle ship during battles such as Midway, to this day can't talk about the "gore" of his experiences. But he is very vocal about politics, and turds like you), and lastly my youth advisor at church, a retired Col. from the Army. He was the first helicopter pilot shot down in Vietnam, but having been shot down more than once it was hardly his only experience.

Don't dare try and claim allegiance with men such as these. You are a coward, and disgrace to this country. Your prescence is a dishonor to us all.

Davis, you're as welcome to your opinion as I am to mine. I could be wrong but I believe you had a threat in that post towards me and certainly a lot of name calling. Well I'm going to extend the the same invitation to you that I do to all who care to start the name calling when the discussion gets heated or they don't like what's being said. Come on over and say it to my face. Toe to toe. I am right here in Culver City, CA.

I won't bother calling you any names on this post. I'll wait till you bring it here. I don't see anyone holding you back. In fact, don't even bother putting up a retort. You feel so strongly?? Then respond to me in e mail with a time that you will be out here to deliver this ass kicking you so want me to have. Screw it, post whatever you need to but you best be ready to deliver in person gumby. belfunk2001@aol.com

I've got your purple Barney suit right here pal.

Kman

P.S. Wil man, I'm sorry it had to come to this but business is business.

Andrew

You bring up cold fusion. Look at all the research for the past few years in this and you will see this is a fraud. I would recommend that you read the book "Voodoo Science". The last name of the author is Park I don't remember his first name. He takes care of this subject a hell of a lot better than I can in a post. It's great to see that anyone who happens to worry about the environment you refer to them as an enviro-nazi. Just because people care doesn't mean they care that much. By the way be careful who you insult they may call you on it. (Good for you Kman, sometimes that shit is necessary).
Also it's not that hard to find 18,000 people, whatever their profession to sign any petition.

Mike Wiffen,

You've made several good points, but you're also totally missing mine. Regarding the ice core samples, I know nothing more than what I've seen on tv a few times, my intention was not to present it as *proof* that the earth is getting colder. My intent is simply to point out how you've got two people saying completely different things about this issue. I also didn't say anything about Cold Fusion being something of the near future... at this point that thing is just as pie in the sky as 2001 (the movie) is. I know nothing about it so I'm not even going try and debate the science of it.

One one side you've got this group of people running around screaming global warming, telling us that our planet is going to heat up and we're all going to die. Scientifically they don't have any solid numbers to back this up, they just don't. That's the point plain and simple.

One the other side you have even more people that say global warming isn't happening, and there is absolutely nothing to worry about. The difference is that this group, 1. Isn't "in your face" crazy, 2. Isn't trying to enslave people, 3. Doesn't have the conservative-hating media on its side.

You strike me as someone that really is trying to be level headed, go do some reading. The environmental movement isn't helping, it's hurting. Hurting a LOT. If you'd like some links I'd be happy to provide a few starting points.

KMAN, lol. I'm sure saying that makes you feel like a real big man up there in your little world. I must have really struck a nerve with you. Could it be that the peaceful KMAN, that wants to prance around with his "Book of Humanity", and present it to the Taliban, is a complete hypocrite? You're kinda going against your whole position now aren't you?

"When liberals get mad", tonight at WilWheaton.net!

Was I name calling? You damn right I was, and I stand by the statement of you being a coward. You and I both know that you're "Don't wind'em up and send 'em off, send a guy in a barney suit instead" attitude has nothing to do with helping anybody. It has all to do with you not being willing to put your ass on the line to defend your country, and preserve the ideals that allow you make such stupid statements. I'm sure you have a bunker in Canada ready and waiting.

Regarding a threat? Nice try. There was no threat of any kind made, and you know that. Throwing that in there was just your petty attempt at trying to look like a real tough guy.

If you have something intelligent to say we may exchange words again, until then have fun in your little selfish world. Oh, and I will reply to your email.

Wil made a comment about being in the wrong place at the wrong time. These innocent people died because they happend to be somewhere that wasn't safe to be. If I'm a white person and I happen to find myself in East LA, the same thing could happen to me (as have happen to others). In truth we oppose ideas and how do you kill an idea?Hitler is dead, but there are people who today believe the things he believed. I dont think these people deserved to die but at the same time I'm not outraged by it as perhaps I should be and I think we have a lot less control over our lives than we think we do.

Davis responded in e mail with the above post. He feels so strongly about war but cannot be bothered to step this way for a little toe to toe.

He now wants to have intelligent conversations and whatnot. Not saying we can't have intelligent conversations, but if you're gonna name call then step up and do it personal. See how much violence you really want to deal with.

More than likely your Great Uncle just isn't that tough mentally. Probably runs in your family. There are plenty of combat vets having survived hellacious experiences that can and do talk about their experiences. Just think, he fought so that you can have the freedom to hurl insults from a safe distance. If they're such the combat vets you say they are they'd tell you to get your little punk ass over here and kick mine. But you won't. You can't.

Wait a minute, wait a minute. There are combat soldiers in Afghanistan right now, fighting, doing all that shit you admire and yet...and yet, you're here, a thousand miles from me in Texas posting bullshit on the board. You're not defending anyone, just insulting peoplee and acting like some tough conservative. Oh it don't get more cowardly than that.

Andrew Davis, you're not a conservative, you're an asshole. (I said pussy in the e mail but it's a toss up)There's a difference.

Kman

Interesing how those who constantly criticize this country and it's "foreign policy" rarely have a suggestion on *how* to make it better.
Here's a suggestion.... take the "dinner out with the wife" donations and send it to those who really need it.

Name calling and pointless bickering are the tools of an uniformed and petty mind. You tell me to update my vocbulary to include more than 4 letter words, where as you seem to need mastery of more than 3 letter words. I never knew someone had as much "ass" to throw around as you. Lets look at how many times you have used personal attacks and wild imagery (avoiding the topic) to make your point rather than facing each issue head on.

I need to calm down and take a breath? --- Is anyone else thinking he was right in saying this? I mean, yes, i was feeling kind of light headed as i read most of his posts, what with the uncontrollable laughter.

#1
**Anti American Enviro Nazi

There was a quote from a movie i'll use to respond to this, kinda fudged though to fit this issue.
"How can you possibly put up with a man claiming to love America, but clearly can't stand Americans",
Andrew, you are the man refered to here. And the movie is American President.

#2
**First of all what kind of thinking is that?

(sigh) First your image of the jumping off the bridge is so far off topic it needs no mention. But if thats what you feel, i wont hold you back from it. Its your life.

#3
**did you know that your boy’s Clinton and Gore didn’t even attempt to get the Kyoto treaty passed

Clinton/Gore aren't my boys. For the 3rd time, i didn't even vote for them. Not once. Can you not read? Or is it just more fun for you to ignor that which has been placed mere inches from your face?

#4
**and enviro nazis like yourself

More name calling ... Childish.

#5
**and since you say they generate the other 75%, shouldn’t their efforts do more than ours?

Collectively yes. Thats kind of why COLLECTIVELY the rest of the world has the 75% lumped up on their side of that loppsided scale you put them on.
My point, if its possible for you to understand, is that when you take the US, and ANY SINGLE other nation, the US has a HELL of a lot more to be resposible for in trems of not only what we put out, but what we need to clean up. HENCE why the US has a lot more to do.

#6
**Does that mean they’re visionaries, but also spineless worms without the fortitude to do anything without us doing it first? Is that what you said? LOL

Avoiding the issue once again that the US is the world leader. Who cares what everyone else is doing (flash back to that bridge you were talking about). LET US DO THE RIGHT THING! LET US BE THE ONE TO SET THE STANDARD. LET US BE THE ONES TO TELL THE REST OF THE WORLD IN 20 YEARS "WE TOLD YOU SO".

#7
**Well first of all we're not.

As you so magnificently said... DUH! thats the point of the statement! Instead of investing billions more into new drilling rigs for his Texas buddies, why isn't Bush investing into making fuel cells more effecient (ie, smaller).

#8
** The cheapest and cleanest power at this point is nuclear, with coal coming in a close second.

Say what??? Does anyone else remember me asking Andrew to put the crack pipe down?? Since when was NUCLEAR power CLEAN????? Oh, wait, that resivor they want to open up in Nevada (see: http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/02/01/yucca.mountain/index.html ) is for sewage from nuclear families.. oops. my mistake.

#9
**First of all there is no evidence that what you call "pollution" is bad for the environment

... sorry momentary light headedness brought on by uncontrolable spirts of laughter. Now, once again (as you so clearly avoided my question about how your kids feel standing next to the 20 or 30 buses every day they come home from school, and have you asked their teachers yet, how they feel about it???)
How many times has LA, Atlanta, or any other *MAJOR* city had air quality alerts in just the past year alone? Anyone? Anyone at all? I've seen in the past year more and more stories on local and national news where doctors are complaining about more and more patients with lung problems becuase of the higer ammounts of pollution in the air. Atlanta and LA specifically lead the pack.

#10
**Every time a volcano erupts it spits out more "pollution" (as you put it) than humanity has during its entire existence by several times. Do you think we should try and cover all the volcanoes with rubber maid lids? LOL

No comment, still laughing.

#11
**And what does character have to do with being smart, or taking measures to prevent a possible problem in the future?

Well, since you seem to need it explained to you, i suggest going here http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entries/65/c0246500.html and specifically reading entired 1 2 and 4.

#12
**When you’re looking up the word ‘character’ be sure to lookup ‘hypocrite’ and ‘short-sighted’ as well.

Ask and you shall receive. Please make sure you read them.
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entries/53/h0365300.html
sorry short-sighted wasn't listed.

#13
**For all these reasons 18,000 scientists have petitioned together against the enviro nazi crowd

Again, more name calling, and avoiding the issue. Nice comment by Mike Wiffen (Also it's not that hard to find 18,000 people, whatever their profession to sign any petition)

#14
**we are not at risk of running out of fuels. We have a fairly decent sized amount of oil left (50 years)

well considering how many years we started with... i'd say thats not much. and the untapped reserves you mention give us what? Another 150? More pollution in the air (global warming or not)... more money in the pockets of the Oil execs. Lets put that money in more useful places... like the offices of scientists trying to make Fuel cells better! Or some other alternative energy.

#15
**it hands power over to the U.N.

Once again, avoiding the issue... did you even bother to really read, not just skim through, but really read my posts? I went over this, but since you seem to need reminding, let me repost it:

"How does Kyoto give the UN and "rogue nations" power over us? The same way that any other treaty does. By this I mean that if we break a treaty, or exit without following the terms, then we can have sanctions against us. This is the reason Bush cannot just build his missile definse. He must abide by the stipulations of the agreement or face sanctions from the UN. This is a part of ANY treaty, NOT JUST KYOTO!! So again, you get no points here. The puppet strigs you refer to come into play ONLY if we do not meet the terms of the agreement, or exit it. Korea can not stand up and say "This year you can only produce X% of these gases". No my friend, my dear mislead Andrew. What it means is that if the US fails to meet the terms of the agreement THEN Korea can stand up and say "you failed to meet this agreement, we suggest you straigten up or we place an 10% higher tax on your exports." See Andrew, the comments your making about giving power over our nation to others is completely bogus. Its a scare tactic used well by many a politician. Heh, look and what they did with Medicare (even if the program is farked beyond reason.)"

That pretty much cover it for ya? Any confusion on this issue still Andrew?

#16
**Are you an Anti-American Mike? I think you are.

More name calling. Childish. How old are you Andrew?? Pathetic quite frankly. But let me state this, where i'm not Anti-American, i am most certinly Anti-Establishment. Let us ALWAYS question the reasons and motives of our leadership, lest they lead us blind.

#17
**Examining the enviro nazi movement as a whole you'll find that they do nothing to help the environment, but a lot to take freedom away from americans, empower themselves, harm capitalism, and line their pockets at the same time.

Once again avoiding the issue, and for the pocket lining comment, i'm mention again, ENRON. hehe

#18
**By mentioning Enron you made us all aware of your real intent.

And that is? Come on Andy, dont be shy, let us all know what i'm thinking. Please. Have you bothered finding out what the ENRON scam is all about? Have you bothered to watch the senate board queston the ENRON execs. Did you watch and see how patheticly Skilling attempted to avoid blame for the company going bankrupt, or the execs of the company giving themselves a 50 million dollar bonus literaly 2 weeks before filing bankruptcy?
Hardly Andrew. Research your facts and come back when you can play with the big boys. We have a kiddie table all set up for you in the mean time.

Sorry all, thought a dose of his own medicine with the name calling and all might slap some sense into him, though i doubt it will.

What ENRON has to do in a discussion about terrorisim and the like is a running policy of our government. Bush, like many presidents before him, instead of supporting international causes, as the international leader the US is- should!- is instead pulling all the tenticals inside... funneling money to his buddies in Texas, forcing America to stand alone. Got news for ya Andy, in this day and age that just dont work. This is a world economy. As i stated before, if Japan goes bankrupt, it WILL drag the rest of the world with it. If England or France, the USA, etc etc go belly up, we take the world with us. Look at how many countries depend on our exports, not for entertainment, but for survival! The wolrd is a virtual spiderweb of trade and commerce that Bush specifically (as HE is the one CURRENTLY in office) is cutting many supporting lines to. Just like hes cutting support lines with the Missile Shield (IE England and Russia along with others).

#19
**You keep bringing things like this up because that's what you're after.

Once again avoiding the issue... how are you avoiding the issue this time, by not mentioning specifically what it is you think i'm after. So? What is it Andy? Or is this one of you apparently easy flowing, mindless rantings trying to sway favor your way? Oops Foiled again... Blast those kids in the 60's van...

#20 1/3
**I'm very afraid of your persistence and non-stop efforts to enslave all of us with your socialistic ideals.

(sigh) Everyone, start laughing at the child screaming for attention.

#20-2/3
**Regardless what does it have to do with Bush? ... If anything illegal was done at Enron, or GC, those responsible should be properly punished for it. Which means jail time.

Agreed here, but the whole rant about "my" socialist Buddies i dont quite understand. I don't know anyone who labels themselves as a socialist, nor do i. Sounds like more name calling here. I firmly believe in the constitution and what it stands for, which is why i gave 4 years of mylife to defind it and those i love. What have you done Andy? ... Andy? ANDY! Stop playing with the big red button!

#20 3/3
**Capitalism and Corporate America are not the enemy

hmmm... debateable.. but we have enough on our plate as it is. The Ideals are sound, no question, but those running the show are the ones i'm questioning here. Focus Andy. Focus.

#21
**are all problems that would solve themselves

Umm Andy, all of us in the grown up world can tell you no problem ever solves itself.
What efforts have i been involved in, Andy, that directly resulted in the Energy crisis in Cal? umm? Where are these spys you hire to keep a watch on me?? Damn! They are AWESOME! You're really getting your monkeys worth!
Honestly i didn't know the situation in Cal until i heard it on the news, which is why i didn't bring it up. I dont know what lead to it, haven't heard or seen enough of the details yet, so, no comment. Tell ya what though, lets get the Gov. from out there, whats his name, Gov. Gray or Davis, something like that... DOH! Lets get him on here and see what he has to say to you about why California is having problems. After all, he deals with the buisness and private results of the situation.

#22
**But in the end I don't think you care. I know your movement doesn't care, and while you might be one of the good-natured few, I don't think so. You are not about progression, you are about yourself. And that's what all this really boils down to.

My... thank you for that insight into myself Andy. I feel reborn now. I can see through clearer eyes... (COUGH!) Sorry guys... had to thorw-up... Andy, you dont know me any more than i know you. But if Name calling and finger pointing at people you dont know... If you truely think that someone with a differing opinion than your own is Anti-American, well then... I guess i am that.

LOOK AT ME EVERYBODY!! LETS ALL GO BE ANTI-AMERICAN TOGEATHER!!

Pathetic Andy. Shame on you. Pathetic. Kman, keep that purple Barny suit handy. Looks like he'll be wearing it after all.

Everybody sing!! "i love you, you love me...."

Lets review.. 22 avoided topics and name calling sessions. In just one letter. And once again i'll bring up, how many kids do you have Andy? Or are you still one yourself? Put the Jello pudding snack pack down a sec and pay attention.

Ask your neighbors how they feel when they think of the 30 or so buses spewing forth their exhaust and their kids standing right there. Hell, ask the people on here how they feel about it. After 8 years i can still taste the aluminum and other metals that are rich in the exhaust of those engines. And if most schools are like mine was, theres not just one wave of buses to pick the kids up, but 2... perhaps even 3. Do you want your kids to deal with that, or would you rather have clean, polution free engines running the vehicles that pick your kids up from school? Who's looking out for Who Andy?

Name calling and pointless bickering are the tools of an uniformed and petty mind. You tell me to update my vocbulary to include more than 4 letter words, where as you seem to need mastery of more than 3 letter words. I never knew someone had as much "ass" to throw around as you. Lets look at how many times you have used personal attacks and wild imagery (avoiding the topic) to make your point rather than facing each issue head on.

I need to calm down and take a breath? --- Is anyone else thinking he was right in saying this? I mean, yes, i was feeling kind of light headed as i read most of his posts, what with the uncontrollable laughter.

#1
**Anti American Enviro Nazi

There was a quote from a movie i'll use to respond to this, kinda fudged though to fit this issue.
"How can you possibly put up with a man claiming to love America, but clearly can't stand Americans",
Andrew, you are the man refered to here. And the movie is American President.

#2
**First of all what kind of thinking is that?

(sigh) First your image of the jumping off the bridge is so far off topic it needs no mention. But if thats what you feel, i wont hold you back from it. Its your life.

#3
**did you know that your boy’s Clinton and Gore didn’t even attempt to get the Kyoto treaty passed

Clinton/Gore aren't my boys. For the 3rd time, i didn't even vote for them. Not once. Can you not read? Or is it just more fun for you to ignor that which has been placed mere inches from your face?

#4
**and enviro nazis like yourself

More name calling ... Childish.

#5
**and since you say they generate the other 75%, shouldn’t their efforts do more than ours?

Collectively yes. Thats kind of why COLLECTIVELY the rest of the world has the 75% lumped up on their side of that loppsided scale you put them on.
My point, if its possible for you to understand, is that when you take the US, and ANY SINGLE other nation, the US has a HELL of a lot more to be resposible for in trems of not only what we put out, but what we need to clean up. HENCE why the US has a lot more to do.

#6
**Does that mean they’re visionaries, but also spineless worms without the fortitude to do anything without us doing it first? Is that what you said? LOL

Avoiding the issue once again that the US is the world leader. Who cares what everyone else is doing (flash back to that bridge you were talking about). LET US DO THE RIGHT THING! LET US BE THE ONE TO SET THE STANDARD. LET US BE THE ONES TO TELL THE REST OF THE WORLD IN 20 YEARS "WE TOLD YOU SO".

#7
**Well first of all we're not.

As you so magnificently said... DUH! thats the point of the statement! Instead of investing billions more into new drilling rigs for his Texas buddies, why isn't Bush investing into making fuel cells more effecient (ie, smaller).

#8
** The cheapest and cleanest power at this point is nuclear, with coal coming in a close second.

Say what??? Does anyone else remember me asking Andrew to put the crack pipe down?? Since when was NUCLEAR power CLEAN????? Oh, wait, that resivor they want to open up in Nevada (see: http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/02/01/yucca.mountain/index.html ) is for sewage from nuclear families.. oops. my mistake.

#9
**First of all there is no evidence that what you call "pollution" is bad for the environment

... sorry momentary light headedness brought on by uncontrolable spirts of laughter. Now, once again (as you so clearly avoided my question about how your kids feel standing next to the 20 or 30 buses every day they come home from school, and have you asked their teachers yet, how they feel about it???)
How many times has LA, Atlanta, or any other *MAJOR* city had air quality alerts in just the past year alone? Anyone? Anyone at all? I've seen in the past year more and more stories on local and national news where doctors are complaining about more and more patients with lung problems becuase of the higer ammounts of pollution in the air. Atlanta and LA specifically lead the pack.

#10
**Every time a volcano erupts it spits out more "pollution" (as you put it) than humanity has during its entire existence by several times. Do you think we should try and cover all the volcanoes with rubber maid lids? LOL

No comment, still laughing.

#11
**And what does character have to do with being smart, or taking measures to prevent a possible problem in the future?

Well, since you seem to need it explained to you, i suggest going here http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entries/65/c0246500.html and specifically reading entired 1 2 and 4.

#12
**When you’re looking up the word ‘character’ be sure to lookup ‘hypocrite’ and ‘short-sighted’ as well.

Ask and you shall receive. Please make sure you read them.
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entries/53/h0365300.html
sorry short-sighted wasn't listed.

#13
**For all these reasons 18,000 scientists have petitioned together against the enviro nazi crowd

Again, more name calling, and avoiding the issue. Nice comment by Mike Wiffen (Also it's not that hard to find 18,000 people, whatever their profession to sign any petition)

#14
**we are not at risk of running out of fuels. We have a fairly decent sized amount of oil left (50 years)

well considering how many years we started with... i'd say thats not much. and the untapped reserves you mention give us what? Another 150? More pollution in the air (global warming or not)... more money in the pockets of the Oil execs. Lets put that money in more useful places... like the offices of scientists trying to make Fuel cells better! Or some other alternative energy.

#15
**it hands power over to the U.N.

Once again, avoiding the issue... did you even bother to really read, not just skim through, but really read my posts? I went over this, but since you seem to need reminding, let me repost it:

"How does Kyoto give the UN and "rogue nations" power over us? The same way that any other treaty does. By this I mean that if we break a treaty, or exit without following the terms, then we can have sanctions against us. This is the reason Bush cannot just build his missile definse. He must abide by the stipulations of the agreement or face sanctions from the UN. This is a part of ANY treaty, NOT JUST KYOTO!! So again, you get no points here. The puppet strigs you refer to come into play ONLY if we do not meet the terms of the agreement, or exit it. Korea can not stand up and say "This year you can only produce X% of these gases". No my friend, my dear mislead Andrew. What it means is that if the US fails to meet the terms of the agreement THEN Korea can stand up and say "you failed to meet this agreement, we suggest you straigten up or we place an 10% higher tax on your exports." See Andrew, the comments your making about giving power over our nation to others is completely bogus. Its a scare tactic used well by many a politician. Heh, look and what they did with Medicare (even if the program is farked beyond reason.)"

That pretty much cover it for ya? Any confusion on this issue still Andrew?

#16
**Are you an Anti-American Mike? I think you are.

More name calling. Childish. How old are you Andrew?? Pathetic quite frankly. But let me state this, where i'm not Anti-American, i am most certinly Anti-Establishment. Let us ALWAYS question the reasons and motives of our leadership, lest they lead us blind.

#17
**Examining the enviro nazi movement as a whole you'll find that they do nothing to help the environment, but a lot to take freedom away from americans, empower themselves, harm capitalism, and line their pockets at the same time.

Once again avoiding the issue, and for the pocket lining comment, i'm mention again, ENRON. hehe

#18
**By mentioning Enron you made us all aware of your real intent.

And that is? Come on Andy, dont be shy, let us all know what i'm thinking. Please. Have you bothered finding out what the ENRON scam is all about? Have you bothered to watch the senate board queston the ENRON execs. Did you watch and see how patheticly Skilling attempted to avoid blame for the company going bankrupt, or the execs of the company giving themselves a 50 million dollar bonus literaly 2 weeks before filing bankruptcy?
Hardly Andrew. Research your facts and come back when you can play with the big boys. We have a kiddie table all set up for you in the mean time.

Sorry all, thought a dose of his own medicine with the name calling and all might slap some sense into him, though i doubt it will.

What ENRON has to do in a discussion about terrorisim and the like is a running policy of our government. Bush, like many presidents before him, instead of supporting international causes, as the international leader the US is- should!- is instead pulling all the tenticals inside... funneling money to his buddies in Texas, forcing America to stand alone. Got news for ya Andy, in this day and age that just dont work. This is a world economy. As i stated before, if Japan goes bankrupt, it WILL drag the rest of the world with it. If England or France, the USA, etc etc go belly up, we take the world with us. Look at how many countries depend on our exports, not for entertainment, but for survival! The wolrd is a virtual spiderweb of trade and commerce that Bush specifically (as HE is the one CURRENTLY in office) is cutting many supporting lines to. Just like hes cutting support lines with the Missile Shield (IE England and Russia along with others).

#19
**You keep bringing things like this up because that's what you're after.

Once again avoiding the issue... how are you avoiding the issue this time, by not mentioning specifically what it is you think i'm after. So? What is it Andy? Or is this one of you apparently easy flowing, mindless rantings trying to sway favor your way? Oops Foiled again... Blast those kids in the 60's van...

#20 1/3
**I'm very afraid of your persistence and non-stop efforts to enslave all of us with your socialistic ideals.

(sigh) Everyone, start laughing at the child screaming for attention.

#20-2/3
**Regardless what does it have to do with Bush? ... If anything illegal was done at Enron, or GC, those responsible should be properly punished for it. Which means jail time.

Agreed here, but the whole rant about "my" socialist Buddies i dont quite understand. I don't know anyone who labels themselves as a socialist, nor do i. Sounds like more name calling here. I firmly believe in the constitution and what it stands for, which is why i gave 4 years of mylife to defind it and those i love. What have you done Andy? ... Andy? ANDY! Stop playing with the big red button!

#20 3/3
**Capitalism and Corporate America are not the enemy

hmmm... debateable.. but we have enough on our plate as it is. The Ideals are sound, no question, but those running the show are the ones i'm questioning here. Focus Andy. Focus.

#21
**are all problems that would solve themselves

Umm Andy, all of us in the grown up world can tell you no problem ever solves itself.
What efforts have i been involved in, Andy, that directly resulted in the Energy crisis in Cal? umm? Where are these spys you hire to keep a watch on me?? Damn! They are AWESOME! You're really getting your monkeys worth!
Honestly i didn't know the situation in Cal until i heard it on the news, which is why i didn't bring it up. I dont know what lead to it, haven't heard or seen enough of the details yet, so, no comment. Tell ya what though, lets get the Gov. from out there, whats his name, Gov. Gray or Davis, something like that... DOH! Lets get him on here and see what he has to say to you about why California is having problems. After all, he deals with the buisness and private results of the situation.

#22
**But in the end I don't think you care. I know your movement doesn't care, and while you might be one of the good-natured few, I don't think so. You are not about progression, you are about yourself. And that's what all this really boils down to.

My... thank you for that insight into myself Andy. I feel reborn now. I can see through clearer eyes... (COUGH!) Sorry guys... had to thorw-up... Andy, you dont know me any more than i know you. But if Name calling and finger pointing at people you dont know... If you truely think that someone with a differing opinion than your own is Anti-American, well then... I guess i am that.

LOOK AT ME EVERYBODY!! LETS ALL GO BE ANTI-AMERICAN TOGEATHER!!

Pathetic Andy. Shame on you. Pathetic. Kman, keep that purple Barny suit handy. Looks like he'll be wearing it after all.

Everybody sing!! "i love you, you love me...."

Lets review.. 22 avoided topics and name calling sessions. In just one letter. And once again i'll bring up, how many kids do you have Andy? Or are you still one yourself? Put the Jello pudding snack pack down a sec and pay attention.

Ask your neighbors how they feel when they think of the 30 or so buses spewing forth their exhaust and their kids standing right there. Hell, ask the people on here how they feel about it. After 8 years i can still taste the aluminum and other metals that are rich in the exhaust of those engines. And if most schools are like mine was, theres not just one wave of buses to pick the kids up, but 2... perhaps even 3. Do you want your kids to deal with that, or would you rather have clean, polution free engines running the vehicles that pick your kids up from school? Who's looking out for Who Andy?

DOH! Sorry bout the dual post there guys.

As human beings, what we know best is how to kill each other. We have been perfecting it for thousands and thousands of years. It will still go on more thousands and thousands of years (unless we blow the crap out of the planet first).
War is not surprising, its just an innate facet of being human. There is always going to be someone who doesnt like what you are or what you stand for.
However I dont like the feeling that what is happening all over this planet of ours is basically one big game of Risk and a small number of players of dicking around with us all for the pleasure of playing it their games.

Mike, that was a helluva post. The key to understanding Andy and others like him is really very simple. Oh, and when I say others, I don't mean conservatives or liberals, I just mean people who have a narrow spectrum. Fanatacism in any form is never a good thing. Anyway just go on down to Central Park and find the horse drawn carriages. Ignore the carriage and look at the horse, then look at the head of the horse and you'll see blinders. These blinders are to narrow the vision of the horse so he's only paying attention to what's in front of them. So that he doesn't get spooked. So that he can be controlled.

Andrew and people like him only see their world. For whatever reasons their brains do not, or cannot process the greater picture. So all the facts and figures that they ever gather only serve to do one thing and that is form the blinders and hey, if he's comfortable with that, rock on. Plenty of people out there with common sense know better.

Kman

Once again, I am needing to reply to a few people.

ANDREW- Thanks for the props, I'm glad we've cleared everything up!

CHRIS- I understand your comment about being young and inexperienced completely. However, I do feel Kman was slighting my intelligence by implying that I am just young and dumb and can be led around by the nose. Also, my mother AND grandmother used to tell me my face would "freeze like that" but, I didn't believe them. It's ok though because I got your point. ;-)

KMAN- You just keep on with your stubborn arguments and short sighted points of view about what I should do to improve myself or knowledge of this country since you don't know me or what I know about anything. As for the health problems you spoke of, I know plenty of people who have been overseas and have NO illnesses. And, telling me to talk to veterans isn't really relevant because there are a lot of veterans in my family (blood and church) who have told me their stories so what would be the point in talking to someone I'm not related to so they could tell me about all the things my family has already told me about? There absolutely isn't one. And those family members, every single one of them are proud of having served their country and wanted to join up again and defend people like you (God knows why!) after what happened September 11th.
Like I said before, you don't know me AT ALL, obviously. My test scored DO matter. With my test scores I got the job of Intelligence Analyst in Aviation which means bullets will not be "whizzing past my head" because I'll be in the air, not on the front lines. Besides the fact that they don't let women on the front lines.
And yes, I'd LOVE to take the exam for airport security. I bet I'd do the job a heck of a lot better than they would. They're all minimum wage workers who obviously do a crap job. Even after 9/11, there were reports ALL over of people bringing on knives and boxknives and hmm...security didn't catchi it! So yes, if it's accessible, I'll take that test!
One last thing for you Kman. Bravo for the show of maturity when dealing with comments. I don't see how you saw a threat from Andrew in his post. It said "and they'd like to kick your ass" NOT "I'd like to kick your ass." You sound like my adolescent brothers who tried to pick fights with everyone who walked passed them!
~J~

i will say this:
before September 11th, 2001, i was your average teenager. i felt invincible. i felt that my government could protect me.
i thought i was fine.
*sighs*
what a difference one day makes.
now, that invincibile feeling is gone. i know i'll never go sit on an airplane.
and "collateral damage"? bull-fucking-shit, man.
that isn't collateral damage. that's homicide, whether justified or not.
that's several people, never seeing the sunrise ever again.
that's several hundred people, never going to walk again.
while thousands of people died on that fateful day, i still feel bad for those that died afterwards.
while some people bitch and moan about certain issues, the point is that people are still dying.
yes, i'm a pacifist.
and i'm damn proud to be so.
before this huge ass mess happened, my life was simple.
now i have to think about my own mortality.
Wil, i'm sorry to be going off like this, and i do apologize for getting all weepy and shit, but
it sucks to feel like your entire world was shattered by one event.
i mean, think about little kids over in Afghanistan that'll never see their parents again, because a civilian hospital was hit by a US bomb.
i'm an american, but i'm not proud of my country's actions right now.
a good friend gave me this advice:
don't read the news. read behind the news.
when you do, then bitch and moan and complain some more.
but some people are still dying and treated like shit.
don't treat people less than human. that will be on your hands.

Jamie it's kind of funny how much it matters to you. Such a long post for what you consider to be my flippant comments. Misreading just about everyone of them to form a comeback including posts not directed at you. Whatever. Hope these kinds of lapses don't affect you in your new position.

Anyway, I never proclaimed to know you, but a general idea of where you're headed isn't the biggest stretch of the imagination anyone's ever had to make.

Good for you that your test scores got you the coveted job of Intelligence Analyst in Aviation. It still does not signify any kind of broad intelligence, it signifies your so called intelligence in that field. Have fun with it. Apparently the analyzation and detection of sarcasm is beyond your capacity. Figures. It is still my opinion that you haven't lived enough to know better so deal with it. (I still don't know you but my thinking you're an idiot sure does seem to bug you)

Flame away, these babies are fireproof.

Kman

Kman,
It wasn't a come back to the post that wasn't to me. I was just telling you how mature you seem to be. And yes, it does bug me that you think I am an idiot because you have no right to make such judgements because you don't know me.
~J~

Ok folks, this page is getting way out of hand, almost half a meg now. Got a few people to reply to, but I'm sick of downloading this page and typing into a tiny little box on a huge monitor.

Don't worry you'll all get replies, but unlike some of you I have other responsibilites that must take priority.

KMAN, I told you via email that you weren't going to get a reply until you said something intelligent. Keep trying with the insults though (so much for education), maybe you'll come up with one clever enough to make me laugh. You also said something to Jamie to the effect of "funny how much this matters to you". I know it's hard, but try not to think about me while you're sleeping, ok?

I forgot to mention... those replies will be coming in via email.

Right on Wil. War is stupid. Always. War never ever works. I believe in self defense and just trials, even special ops infiltration, but not killing people.

War is almost always fought for religious or imperialistic reasons. We may say that we started this war to end terrorism and that *may* be true. But this war should have ended months ago. Terrorism will not end through violence. It will only grow larger, I am afraid.

If we continue this war and start attacking other countries I am very fearful for the future of our planet. Our (not my) national leader is not helping our situation with his inflammatory comments.

Every other person on this planet is your brother or sister. Even if you disagree with them.

Jamie truth be told in my earlier post I was making a generalization. It's not to say everyone is an absolute idiot that joins the military. Seriously, the military needs people who will follow orders and the fact is someone who is 18 or so is far more impressionable than someone who's 35. It's not to say anything about courage or honor. There's a reason basic training goes the way it does. Anyway, that's it.

Andrew, I sent you an e mail saying that the next e mail that arrives from you should tell ME A TIME AND DATE YOU'LL BE OUT HERE and in true convenient fashion you turned it around and said I'd be telling you when I'd be out to Texas in my next e mail. Don't make me post my last e mail to you which didn't have any insult whatsoever but said, "nice try". I said it before and I'll say it again. You will hurl insults from behind that screen but you'll never stand toe to toe with me and say shit. I don't care who you know or who you're related to that fought wherever. Right now, we're discussing YOU and YOU wouldn't meet me in broad daylight on the 50 yard line of the Superbowl if it meant you had to do it alone. There's nothing for me to get upset about nor am I emotional about it. I've seen your type before and it's just pathetic. So you keep it up with what you consider to be slyness.

Rereading some of your posts and insults, especially the continual homosexuality references it's clear to me that what matters to you most or what bothers you a great deal, is that you haven't come to terms with yourself. I have a gay cousin who went down much the same road your going down now. The repeated insults that only referenced 'faggots, and whatnot' man, that is you. Doh! Anyway man, grab a jacket and come on out of the closet. Nothing wrong with being gay, but there is something wrong with not being true to yourself.

Kman

yuuuuuuuuuuup.

Speaking of wars, anyone see that Bush is pushing even MORE money into the "war on drugs"?

He also babbled on about how everytime someone buys drugs they are funding terrorists....

I got an idea....

Maybe instead of trying to fight a war that obviously cannot be won, DO SOMETHING else about it.

Such as the legalization of drugs. The government would then wipe out the black market money going to terrorists, and could then spend the money made on (and saved) on issues that we should have resolved by now (better education, nationwide health insurance etc...).

It works just fine in Amsterdam....

I mean c'mon...people are not going to stop doing drugs.

It's like starting a war against breathing.

Can I get an amen?!

Nicely said, Wil. Apparently only a tiny minority sees the so-called "War on Terrorism" as the empire-building terrorist atrocity that it is, though it's pretty obvious when the facts are disclosed. Anyone in your position, who has an audience thanks to your line of work, does a real public service by encouraging others to question the official version (offal version?). The mainstream media does nothing but mindlessly regurgitate Pentagon press releases.

(Maybe somebody ought to remix the Beatle song - Back in the USSA....)

All the best.

Good post, Wil. That's all.

AMEN SLiDERPiMP!

Later

Drew,

I'd hardly call this a war, anyhow. But that is a point that is noted.

"Let me clarify just a few other things, too: If you're a serviceman or woman, I don't have a problem with you, or the choice you've made to defend our country. It seems that every time I question the morality of a war, or the motives of our leadership, I get flooded with emails and comments from insulted members of the armed forces, and I'd like to head that off, if it's at all possible. The same way that I don't want to be blamed for a lousy episode of TNG, I don't blame you for a war that I don't agree with. I know, a thin comparison, but I think you get my point."

Hey, Services folk. Get off your fucking pots. He can voice any perspective he likes. Grow a brain, and yes this is a flame. You all seem to gloat about how much of saviour each and everyone of you are. Yet you seem to contradict the very same thing YOU vow to uphold. If assholes like you are the very people that "protect" my interests, then I'd rather not have you at all. I'll do my own dying. Thanks!

Wonderful post, Will. I will return to read again. You echoed many of my own feelings. I worry about those children now orfaned, and the mothers awaiting medical care.

I personally look forward to someday being able to freely travel to Afghanistan to see the people, and hopefully repay them by being a "good tourist" and student of their culture.

Novel,

Thats the only word I can come up with for any kind of justification for killing. Anyone that thinks the afghanistan invasion had something to do with Bin Laden obviously knows very little about US motives. Think "pipeline". GW's little boys had a meeting with the taliban kiddies to discuss putting an oil pipeline through their territory just a few short months before 9-11 in which they told GW to stuff said pipeline up his ass. GW obviously didnt take kindly to being told no,... most children dont, after all.

The planned invasion of Iraq also has nothing to do with any potential threat posed by El Saddamisimo,... nope, not even a little,... ask yourself,... do ya think for one second that once the freakshow you have for a president gets his hands on the 3rd largest oil fields in the world hes gonna give em up? Think again. Its all about profit, power, and control over a vital resource. Always was, always will be.

Your country is nothing short of the fourth Reich. Deal with it quick, or someone like China, Russia, or perhaps both will do it for you.

Or, ignore me, and every other hint you can, get reactionary, dont try to figure it out for yourself and kiss your yankee asses (and likely half the planet with ya) goodbye. All for the sake of designer sneakers.

damn you people suck.

TBJ

Needed to rant a bit more, I’m sure you’ll forgive me (shortly after hell freezes over)...

You don’t live in a democracy,... the actual term for what you have is a representative republic. That GW is in power now is evidence for that reality. In a democracy a vote is a vote. This isn’t the case for you yanks.

Another quick note, the last American soldier to die for anyone's freedom passed away in 1945. Everything after that has been about money. If you’re in the US armed forces, its noble that you wish to defend others and are willing to put your life on the line to do so. But make no mistake, you WILL be used to bolster profits, you ARE being used to consolidate corporate power. You are being used, and lied to. Don’t think so? Why the fuck did GW cut vet's benefits in half? You want to give your arm, leg, eye, or life just to be forgotten in the end?

Risking it all deserves a hell of a lot more than that kind of treatment. But don’t take my word for it, find out for yourself,... if you live that is.

The American people were only attacked on 9-11 as an indirect result of their ignorance of what their government has been doing the world over. Think not? There are 500,000 dead Cambodians, 400,000 dead Sudanese, 20,000 dead residents in Bhopal would strongly disagree if they still had breath in their lungs to do so. And that is only the beginning of the numbers killed by US military and corporate powers.

I find myself laughing at GWs ramblings about that goofy guy in Iraq. Whenever that moron babbles about weapons of mass destruction I laugh and laugh,... everyone else in the world knows that the biggest threat via weapons of mass nastiness comes from the US, not Saddam. Yet for some reason you people have no idea,... its probably because you watch 'friends' or the 'Simpsons' too much to pay attention to what your government does. Either that or you’re too busy worrying about something else of dire importance, like if that new Lexus comes in green…

Nothing like getting your priorities straight.

Just in case you forgot, let me remind you,
you suck,... not because you have material success, not because you can get that car in the color of your choice, or that McDonalds really does do it all for you, but because you LET yourselves get too distracted to see whets going on in front of your face.

TBJ

PS, by the way, Wil,... I’m sure God will forgive you for your part in TNG. I’ll put in a good word for ya... he listens to me.

(before you start commenting on my ignorance of spelling and grammar usage.... because that's all you people do when someone disagrees with your bleeding heart ways....I purposely did not use caps in the words of allah, islam, muslim and etc...simply another way I can show my disrespect for these nasty people, er, I mean creatures)

Ok people......here's the problem. This county is not ACTING. We are doing absolutely NOTHING to prevent this. There has been no recourse to the actions of these rag head wearing camel jockeys.

As long as they can continue to blow up whatever they want, whenever they want, THEY WILL! Because that is their mind set. They can not think for themselves.....they're ignorant, ugly, evil, sub-human, creatures. And yeah, the more I think about it, I mean ALL of them.

Yeah I hate....and so what. They do to. All they understand is violence. Treat like with like. An eye for an eye.

Ohhhhhhhhh Big Bad America is going to slap us on the wrists, but that's all, so lets do it more and more, says 'Mohammadajasamairahadahja." Why shouldn't he think like that? He and all his nasty friends know it's the plain, simple, truth.

Until this country grows a backbone and our freaking "afraid to offend anyone who isn't white" leaders don't get off their fat asses and do something, this country and planet are going to crumble into nothing. (which may be the best thing, actually)

This country, along with all the other western civilized nations, will look like most of the ones in the middle east now. Burned out, shot up and people living in caves....just wait.

I have but one solution. BLOW THEM ALL UP. KILL THEM ALL NOW. I don't care what you bleeding heart, open minded, liberal assholes think about my words...I know you're all going to get pissy and mad about me and my warmongering.....but I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOU. You people are one of the main reasons that this all continues on.

These pieces of shit would blow your freaking head off along with your newborn babies, your mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters, as fast as they could, if you gave them a chance. Trust me on this. They would kill your entire family in the street, piss on their dead bodies and dance in the flow of their blood. All in the name of allah and islam.....oh you bet your sweet, stupid ass they would, my brother....... Yes, they WOULD. You know it's true, but you don't want to, so you DENY it. WAKE UP!

As for innocent.....well, let's talk about innocent. They've turned that table on innocent. There IS NO INNOCENT in this war against terror they conduct. They would kill us all if they could/can. Therefore in my mind, there is no innocent of their kind either. NONE. They are all targets. muslim, islamic, middle eastern, whatever.

If they blow up a club in Bali, we drop a nuclear device on a very large city of hundreds of thousands......they blow up an oil tanker in the gulf, we drop another nuclear device on another city of bigger size...any one of choice. Turn it into a big, shiny, glass parking lot. ANY DAMN ONE. For every bomb they detonate we take out another quarter of their population....innocent, muslim, or NOT, until there is absolutely nothing left.

If you kill enough of them, they will MAYBE, MAYBE, see that this is no longer a game, and they might consider putting and end to all this death and destruction, THAT THEY STARTED, in the name of "allah".

But it is most likely that there would still be a few walking around out there who would just keep going because it's all they know, because they're ignorant camel fuckers. More reason to just get rid of them all now.

Which leads to my next step. Just kill them all and let God clean up the mess.

Get the freaking exchange students and ANY other person(s) of mid-eastern descent, regardless of age, gender, creed, or what they believe, and SEND THEM PACKING. Maybe even anyone involved in this fanatical religion of islam (no I did not capitalize that for a reason) who lives in this country, no matter who they may be. White, black, whatever. It has no place in this country. Get it and them out, NOW!

Lock up the borders, turn off the lights and let it be known, this country will not tolerate this crap any more and if they start up again, blow up another country or two, just as a reminder. It sure as hell stopped Japan didn't it? Where is Harry S Truman when we need him? A great man. Too bad we don't have more leaders like him in this day and age.

Yeah, call me an ignorant, moronic, small minded person.....whatever you want. I could care less about what you have to say about me and how stupid my views are. Thing is, you don't know.
You have no idea.

When it's in your backyard and your neighborhood is burning and you're running for your life...you might think, "maybe we should have been a little more harsh in our actions", but I tend do doubt it...you people would probably just give them the rest of your belongings and ask them to forgive you for the horrid things your country has done to them.....yeah, that's about right.

But of course, we simply can't offend anyone or hurt their feelings....that would be wrong.

About as wrong as the flight attendant that mahammad grabbed from behind and slit her throat on one of the planes from 911. As she bled to death and countless others watched and could do nothing.

About as wrong as the man who had to decide to either jump 110 floors to his death or burn alive....as he thought about his family and loved ones while his body reached speeds of 200 miles per hour falling from his place of work.....until you've had to experience it, you won't change your mind. But when it happens to YOU, you're going to wish you had thought different. It'll be too late then though, won't it?

About as wrong as all the people who were blown up as they danced the night away in a nightclub on vacation.

About as wrong as all those innocents who are going to die when these pieces of human waste get the chance to commit another large scale attack. And they will.

Innocents....innocents who were killed by falling bombs, friendly fire..etc. STOP WITH THE PITY FOR THOSE PEOPLE.

You need to start feeling pity and sorrow for the people of your OWN COUNTRY! Too damn much concern for those who don't matter to us, me, and you, yes, you. And if you feel so much for them, then pack your bags and go live with them. We'd be better off without you anyway!

Just remember, most of these people don't want our help, and want us to leave them alone.
Well, if we are so adept at hearing their cries, then why the hell don't we listen to THAT?!!!!! LEAVE THEM ALONE AND LET THEM DEAL WITH THEIR OWN SLIME WHO MURDER AND KILL. They've fought these damn religious wars for thousands of years over there and it is best we let them just keep on. Stay out of their business. I'll go back to horse and buggy if it means leaving them where they are and staying out of it. Screw oil...we can make do on our own.

The founders of this country are turning over in their graves.....if they weren't already dead, they would take a gun and turn it on themselves at what they were seeing.

Just hand them the keys, open the doors and let them come on in and take over......that's what you all want isn't it? Yeah, give em what they want and pat them on the back. And while you're doing it, their brother, hamjabahah, hiding in the bushes, blows your brains out because you're an AMERICAN.

It's time to wake up people. Lets grow some cajones and do something about this, NOW.

Thanks Bill Clinton, you piece of shit.

And to "the baby jesus"

Exactly which surburban white neighborhood do you sit, with your thousand dollar computer talking about what a lame group the US and it's people are? Who are you kidding? You know you're right here in the middle of it with the rest of us, playing your MP3s, drinking your Dew and looking at porn....driving your SUV to your dotcom job....get off the act you moron. Have you ever done anything to help those less fortunate than you? Yeah, I'm sure you're just a regular saint arentcha?

My friend, when half the planet does go, I bet you're gonna be taken with it, I CAN ONLY HOPE.
You freak.

LOL

And for the next issue of "Suicidial Goon", we have Donald Rumsfield, and John Ashcroft playing themselves in an episode entitled "women and children first".

Dontcha love irony?

Wow, this is an interesting site and discussion board you got going here, and i guess my view on all this is much common to that of yours... but more than anything, i think it boils down to the fact that we really all are human and are all equal... and there is no "others." Check out my website sometime, i'm very fond of being "Open-minded"
great job!

It is amazing that people all over the world hate each other and kill each other in the name of their god or their government and somehow the US is blamed for it. The US is hated and envied for our sucess in running a free capitalist society. Those without education or ability to think oftentimes believe that the best thing to do is to give in to those that oppose us. They say we should be more sympathetic to their feelings. Clearly these people are nieve and do not understand the nature of man. There are two things that drive human emotion: Money and Power. If you follow one, you will find the other. Though the US is not a perfect place (go to California and see) we at least have the methods in place to correct our leaders mistakes by replacing them with individuals who better reflect our views. Try to do that in China, or Somalia, or Libya, or Egypt, or Venesuela, or (insert country here). You get my point by now. So yes, war is a terrible thing and civilians die in war. (WWII casualties were almost 1/2 civilian) Fortunately I know that we will do everything that we can do to try and prevent deaths of "innocents". There is not another country on earth now or in history that can claim that. Those of you who attack and protest the US really do not appreciate what we are about and you only believe the falsehoods that are spread by groups that want to bring down the US. I encourage you to think for yourself. Question what you are being told, both in the news and by these anti- whatever groups. Remember above all else, people want money and power, including these anti war groups. The truth is out there, it is elusive but there. You have to use your head to find it.